Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 25 Jul 1962

Vol. 55 No. 10

Appropriation Bill, 1962 (Certified Money Bill) — Second Stage.

Minister for Finance (Dr. Ryan)

The Appropriation Bill affords the Seanad an opportunity to discuss the various items of voted expenditure. The Bill itself follows the usual lines except, on this occasion, for one section to which I shall refer specifically later.

The purpose of the Bill is to supplement the provisions of the last Central Fund Act with regard to the authorisation of issues from the Central Fund for the Supply Services for the current year; to appropriate to the respective Supply Services the various issues authorised since last year's Appropriation Act; to authorise the issues on foot of supplementary estimates for last year which were not covered by the Central Fund Act, and to empower the Minister for Finance to make the necessary borrowings.

This year the Bill also deals with a matter which was an annual feature of the Appropriation Acts up to 1936, namely, the declaration required to be made at quarterly intervals by public service pensioners. This recurring annual provision was made permanent by Section 20 of the Finance Act, 1937. The declaration, which must be made in the presence of a witness, is a safeguard against payment of pensions to persons not entitled to them. Experience has shown that the requirement that these declarations should be made at quarterly intervals is too rigid and Section 5 of the Bill accordingly provides that the Minister for Finance may determine from time to time by statutory rules at what intervals the declarations may, in fact, be required. In other respects the new section merely re-enacts the existing provisions.

I recommend the Bill to the House.

Professor Hayes

The Appropriation Bill which the Minister has introduced so briefly gives an opportunity to members of the House to discuss Government policy or Government administration. It could be used to deliver an attack upon the Government. I have done that on more than one occasion but I do not propose to do it now because I should like, since this is I think the 40th Appropriation Bill, to make a few preliminary remarks and then say something about the expenditure which it seems to me the Minister for Finance must undertake in certain educational reforms which have become urgent whether we succeed or do not succeed in becoming members of the European Economic Community.

This is a very big bill. It is an enormous bill by comparison with the revenue of 1922 which I think was £27,000,000. We have spent a great deal of money in the interval but this, I think, is the biggest bill of all. We might take pride in the fact that in spite of some mistakes we have succeeded in establishing and maintaining here a genuine working parliamentary democracy. It could be said I think that of all the parliaments established in the new States after the first war this is the only one which has survived and is working, working on the whole, in spite of occasional and well reported episodes, with good feeling and co-operation.

A great deal of change has taken place. I could enumerate a number of changes which the Minister and his Party have undergone but I need not say more now than that these changes have taken place partly by force, partly by persuasion and partly by Irish good nature. The situation so far as Parliament is concerned now is an excellent one.

I want to deal with some matters which arise in connection with our proposed entry into the European Economic Community. The Community is much more than a plan for economic purposes. It has also political and cultural aims. Its political aims have not yet taken shape and no one can say precisely what they are. Its cultural aims are not to bring about a dull uniformity and for that reason our problem if we get into the Common Market will be to avail of the advantages which it offers to us. In order to avail of the advantages we shall have to take certain steps ourselves. There are two particular things which have to be done and which I think are appropriate to be discussed on this Bill because they will both be costly. One is to improve the position generally with regard to science teaching and research and the other is to improve our position with regard to modern languages.

I am not a racing man but I looked at television—which I have not got— for the Derby in the Curragh. It was somewhat humiliating to find when French was required to be spoken that not one person at the racecourse connected with Telefís Éireann had a single word of French. I suppose it was because it was not contemplated in advance.

Let me deal first with the question of science. The Appropriation Bill contains a very substantial contribution by the Government to the building of the new science block at Belfield for University College, Dublin. I should like to express my thanks to the Minister for that particular grant and for what it means to University College, Dublin. It came only at the last moment and just barely in time to prevent a breakdown of the science faculty in University College, Dublin. There has been an enormous increase in the number of university students and in secondary school students. That has taken place not only here but in England and in Europe. In Britain, a very big increase in university students is contemplated by the end of this decade. There has been an increase here and there has also been an increase in attendance at secondary schools. But neither in staffing nor in equipment nor in buildings are we in a position to handle the increases of numbers. Whether or not we succeed in getting into the EEC, we are going to face a highly competitive world in which our only hope is to go with the times in matters of education.

If we are to have good university education we must have good secondary schools. Indeed, it is also true that if we are to have good secondary schools we must have good universities to provide them with teachers. There is an inter-action in that matter.

In this country, one reform I would suggest to the Minister is immediately necessary and it certainly will cost money. We build primary schools, mainly at Government expense. We build vocational schools, mainly at Government expense. We have given substantial grants and they will be much more substantial still for buildings for university colleges. But we make no grants for the building of secondary schools. The reasons are of course historical. Secondary schools are privately owned. In the case of Catholic secondary schools, in the main, but not of course entirely, they are owned by religious communities.

The situation now is that the need is so urgent, so many schools are required and the cost is so high that I cannot see for myself—and I have been briefed by nobody—how we can make adequate provision for secondary schools without Government grants. These Government grants are given in Northern Ireland and in Britain. In fact, the best convent secondary school I ever saw, both from the point of view of the building itself, its surroundings and equipment inside, was in Northern Ireland. It was very close to the most northerly point in that area. I think that that is one thing that must be done.

We shall have to examine the programme of our secondary schools in order to see whether we can improve our position with regard to modern languages. The Minister has shown a certain awareness of that in the Civil Service. It should be possible to take people into the Civil Service who already know a modern Continental language. Our consideration of that particular matter is hampered by the fact that nobody has the courage apparently to state what the particular place of Irish ought to be. I think it ought to be a very substantial place because the EEC does not aim at creating uniformity. If we are to benefit by that lack of uniformity we should be as thoroughly Irish as we can possibly be. It is only in that way that we can lay a proper foundation and resume the valuable contacts we once had with Europe.

But the programmes of secondary schools will have to be considered. The position of Latin in Ireland will have to be considered. The position of Irish and the position of modern Continental languages will have to be considered. If you want to do English, Irish, Latin and a modern Continental language and give people their knowledge of science that they ought to have if they are going to live in the modern world then we shall have to revise some of our old ideas about a number of these things.

There are of course a great many modern methods in teaching by machines and other ways. But the teacher will remain all-important. There are people who think, for example, that classical Latin should not be studied at all by ordinary students. I suggest to the Minister that the Department of Education needs very drastic and very urgent reform in that particular way. When I say that I do not want to be taken as criticising the work that has been done in the secondary schools. I will come to that in a few moments when I come to talk about science.

There are some interesting figures with regard to the entries of students who are doing science. In University College, Dublin the numbers have been increasing for years. This year they reached the figure of 700. Of these 90 per cent of the men have already done science in a secondary school and 40 per cent of the women. Nearly all the men who take science have done honours mathematics in the secondary school. That is a very creditable performance for the secondary schools on very slender resources.

May I say, in passing, on that matter that one of the necessities will of course be to improve the position of teachers in these schools because a teacher has never got in this country or indeed in any of the neighbouring countries the recognition which his vocation and his enthusiasm and his knowledge of human nature entitle him to. Certain types of teachers are now nearly impossible to get. Business firms and industries are so interested now in statistics and mathematics that mathematics graduates no longer are willing to go to teaching at all. Here and in England, universities are finding it nearly impossible to get mathematics teachers of a sufficiently high order.

The number of science students coming into University College, Dublin, has been increasing so much that this year the Science faculty approaches the faculty of Arts, and has become the second largest faculty in the College. It is noteworthy also in this atomic age, with all the talk about physics, that the number of students taking physics is increasing steadily and is now nearly equal to the numbers taking chemistry. The facilities however are not available as they ought to be.

In Birmingham, for example, for 900 students there are 50 academic staff and 150 technicians. I doubt if there are 150 technicians in all the university colleges in this country. The relation of academic staff to students in Britain is two members of the academic staff to fifteen students. The relation here is two members of the academic staff to 40 students. Therefore, there is a great deal of leeway to be made up. Similarly with regard to the grants. In England, a great deal is done by industries. There is only one example that I know of here. But, excluding final students and second and third year agricultural students the State contribution in University College, Dublin is £95 per student. The only other money is from students' fees. The contribution in Britain is £350, that is, nearly four times as much.

There is one example of co-operation between industry and universities here, in the chair of Industrial Microbiology established in University College, Dublin. The Chair was established in University College, generously endowed by Arthur Guinness and Company and Bord na Móna. It is equipped properly and aims at doing research into turf and turf products. It may not, of course, produce immediate results but it is agreed generally by Arthur Guinness, Bord na Móna, scientists and industrialists that this is the only path on which we can proceed to a proper development of industry in this country.

I am indebted to a colleague of mine, Dr. Nevin, Professor of Experimental Physics in University College, Dublin, who delivered an address on Science in the Universities to Convocation in 1960. The amount of money available here for scientific research is very low. There is a feeling here, I think, that we can depend upon outsiders, rich people like the English, French or Americans, to do our research for us and I would like to read and put on record here what Professor Nevin said about that:

We must get away from the defeatist attitude that, because this is a small country with limited resources, we must necessarily stagnate in an age of science. A small country can have advantages in compactness with a consequent reduction in the problems associated with organisation and the avoidance of waste of effort. We must also discard the notion that there is really no need to do anything because we can let other countries do the work and then pick up the experience, or as an alternative we can always buy know-how from abroad. These procedures always involve a time lag and mean, in a sense, that we are acquiring the secrets of yesterday to face the world of tomorrow.

A very important point that. Professor Nevin goes on to say:

One cannot really acquire knowledge in science by reading papers and books. You can only learn to swim by jumping into the water and getting wet.

I should like to recommend that view to the Minister. On the question of scientific research, it is impossible and will become more and more difficult to make industrial progress without sufficient scientific research.

There is also the question of vocational schools and what precisely they are turning out. We in this country lack technicians very much, not so much architects, scientists or professional people as craftsmen and technicians on what one might call without offence a lower level. It is impossible to find people who understand modern machinery. Some firms who were brought over with grants from the Minister found difficulty in getting staff here. That is something the vocational schools could do and ought to do and, if necessary, the Minister should provide the money for them to do it.

I have dealt already with modern languages, but we have considerable talent in the modern language line. We have the advantage of speaking an English language based upon Irish sounds where the vowels are pure vowels and it is easier to proceed from them to a knowledge of a Continental language like French, German or Italian than it is from a language like southern English. In any event that progress must be made.

May I pass now to another topic. On the Road Traffic Bill I moved an amendment dealing with restriction on the use of motor horns at night with a view to reducing noise generally. The Minister for Local Government, although he is a recent appointee, gave me the usual Ministerial reply. He said the amendment was not necessary; everything was all right; he was going to make a regulation about it. But he has not made a regulation about it and the horns are still blowing away. I wonder if the Minister for Finance would ask his colleague whether he intends to make any regulation about that, a regulation which will go much further than the use of motor horns? The question of noise in this country has gone further now than the use of horns. Planes passing over in the middle of the night make extraordinary noises, but I should like to make the point that the Minister's promise that he was going to make a regulation regarding the noise caused by motor horns has not been fulfilled.

There is another point relevant to education and to the world we live in. The world has changed enormously since the first Appropriation Bill was brought into the Dáil in 1922. I do not think the Civil Service has changed in accordance with the times. While I realise from my own experience both in office and in opposition the sterling service and the sterling qualities of civil servants and what they have done, I wonder whether our system of recruitment or system of training and even our system of payment is the proper one. We recruit civil servants by examination and by interview at a very early age and they remain inside the Civil Service for the rest of their lives. In the new dispensation they have to deal constantly with citizens who are in business or other walks of life and I very much doubt whether the modern Civil Service can bear the burdens placed on it by the Dáil and Seanad, by modern parliaments, unless some improvement is made in recruitment. Recently the head of the Department of Finance addressed graduates to show them the advantages of the Civil Service. When I was a student—it is a long time ago—the best graduates were destined for the British Civil Service; the best graduates now are not destined for our Civil Service and the best graduates very often would not consider it at all, good, bad or indifferent.

There has been one break in the clouds. I suggested long ago and so did the then Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. John Maher, that when a student passed the executive officer examination and held a university scholarship he should be allowed to complete his university scholarship and then go into the Civil Service. An arrangement has been made about that which I think is a good one. I would suggest to the Minister changing one regulation which I understand says that in order to keep his scholarship the student must get honours in every examination. A university professor would never make a regulation like that because experience has taught him that some very good students do not get honours in every examination every year and more flexibility there would be desirable.

They should get recruits from outside the Civil Service, people who have experience in working in the world and can understand what people are saying to them. It is a matter which certainly is of great importance. One of the curious things about our development and our money is that while we have no socialist Party, if I may say so, in this country at all we are more socialised than any other country around us. We are much more socialised than Britain, much more so than Britain was under a socialist Government. We have created many boards and have given the Government a great deal of power. Incidentally, Parliament is supposed to have power too, but the truth is that the more power Parliament is supposed to have, the wider its power is supposed to go, the less power Parliament can exercise. We had an example here this evening in Senator Quinlan's amendment and tomorrow I think we will have another on the Bill regarding the CIE. The Dáil and Seanad cannot do anything about semi-State bodies. The Minister may have influence. Sometimes it is denied that he has and sometimes it is thought that he has. Anyway, Parliament has no power at all practically speaking. It may be possible to exercise Parliamentary power by some method but, speaking for myself, I do not know what that method may be.

That brings me back to the point I am making about the Civil Service. The Civil Service has functions to perform now with regard to the examination of projects of various kinds, for instance, Bord na Móna, CIE, the Electricity Supply Board, Irish Shipping, and so on. Civil servants have functions and duties today which were never dreamed of 20 or, at any rate, 40 years ago. It is necessary that we should examine the whole problem to see whether they could be recruited at varying levels or recruited in different ways from the methods which have been faithfully followed up to the present.

Finally, I should like to say that I do not take the pessimistic view that some people seem to take, that because we are a small country we cannot do any good and that everything that is wrong in the country is to be laid at the door of the schools. When I say more money must be spent on education and suggest that certain things must be done, I am not by any means taking the view that everything is wrong at the moment and that nothing that is done is right and that the schools are responsible for our defects. They most certainly are not. The truth is that with very slender resources they are doing extremely good work. With regard to the general situation it is true to say that we should not be pessimists. We should look at the problems which are there to be faced and endeavour to face them. We should endeavour to face them without acrimony and together. There are a great many problems which face us and about which there is no need for acrimony.

Science and education are two of these questions. As far as this country is concerned the native Irish have a very long and a very proud record in the way in which they have succeeded in adapting themselves to changing and difficult conditions. I do not see why we should not be able to adapt ourselves to the new conditions of the European Economic Community. In regard to education in particular we have our record of adapting for our own national purposes, and making them serve our own national needs, systems of education devised for us for different purposes altogether by those who were then our masters. We do not need to be pessimists about what we should be able to accomplish but as far as the Minister for Finance and his successors are concerned they certainly will not be able to make any progress without a very considerable increase in the remuneration of teachers, without a very considerable increase in the money spent on school buildings and without a very considerable increase in the money spent on scientific equipment. It would appear that money can be made available and if it can be we have a reservoir of human resources that will be equal to any task that we would put upon it. I feel we are not availing of all the human resources at our disposal. The number of university students who are aided, that is, who hold scholarships, is less than 10 per cent. The number in Britain is over 60 per cent, even in the oldest universities which are the hardest to get into.

Here the money available in university scholarships to an individual is less in real value than what could have been won many years ago. There has been a change for the better quite recently but the Minister for Education will need to go a great deal further. Scholarships must become more numerous and more generous, if we are to make the greatest possible use of the talent available to us. We should have confidence that our human resources are equal to any problem that may confront us in the future.

Professor O'Brien

This is the occasion on which the Seanad debates the expenditure of public money in contrast with the debate on the Finance Bill where it deals with revenue. I do not propose to deal with any particular Department but I agree with Senator Hayes and I see around me other speakers who are going to deal with educational problems also. I certainly agree that more money must be spent on education to equip us in the new world which we are entering. I am going to address myself to the question of the volume of expenditure as a whole rather than deal with a particular department.

There is nothing very much new to be said on this occasion that has not been said before on previous Appropriation Bills. What has to be said is not popular with probably the House or the public. It is the misfortune of economists always to have to say unpopular things, and one of the great economists, the late Professor Marshall, said: "When anything I said was applauded I knew I was wrong." As I am never applauded by anyone, I think I am always right. With that somewhat pessimistic introduction I shall now address my remarks to the Bill.

The expenditure must be regarded as a whole. The Minister must regard the total volume of expenditure. While each individual item is usually justifiable and while a very strong case has been made this evening for increasing expenditure in particular directions, one cannot get away from the fact that if every desirable objective gets the amount it requires the total public expenditure may reach very dangerous proportions; that, like the individual trying to live inside his income, it is not pleasant to have to cut down on any particular item of expenditure. Practically every single item can be justified but at the same time, unless the Minister cuts down, the total may be alarming. He may find himself spending too much and, like the individual, if he looks after his pennies, the pounds will look after themselves.

In the same way the Minister for Finance must look to every item of expenditure if he is to keep the total inside a reasonable sum. For this purpose the Minister must regard himself as an economist. He must be prepared to be unpopular. He must be unpopular with the public because different sections of the public are always looking for expenditure on their own particular schemes, whatever they may be, so that when he refuses that particular type of expenditure he annoys a large number of people. On the other hand, when he grants it and he has to increase taxation he annoys another large number equally. Therefore, it is the duty of a good Minister for Finance to be unpopular with the public. He must also be prepared to be unpopular with his colleagues because other Departments of State are known as spending Departments. There is an antithesis as between spending and saving. If the other Departments are known as spending Departments the Department of Finance must be regarded as the saving Department, the Department that advocates saving in all directions.

The Minister for Finance must also be prepared to be unpopular with the Oireachtas. Already we have heard a plea for more expenditure in a particular direction and I have no doubt that before the debate is over we will hear other pleas for more expenditure. Each of these taken by itself is unanswerable but the Minister if he is not to run into a dangerous total must be prepared to reject these claims and he has to be prepared to be unpopular with the Dáil and even on occasions with the Seanad.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7.15 p.m.

Professor O'Brien

On this debate I cannot say much that is not to be found in the Report of the Central Bank, which I am going to quote shortly because the Report for this year covers the whole question very fully. The main theme, one might say, of this Report is the necessity for this country to avoid inflation. Inflation has two evil consequences. In the first place, it can upset the balance of payments, and in the second it can be the cause of grave social injustice to the holders of fixed incomes. The Central Bank issued very strong warnings about the dangers of inflation, especially in view of the uncertainty regarding the future, the obscurity as to whether we have to face more keen competition, the disappearance of tariffs and so on, but I think it is not irrelevant to state that this warning against inflation is not peculiar to the Central Bank. The Central Bank has been criticised as being unduly conservative, unduly anxious and afraid to stimulate growth. In fairness to the Central Bank, it might be no harm to draw attention to the fact that the Central Banks in practically every European country to-day are all preaching the same doctrine. Even in countries that have had so-called economic miracles and great expansion in recent years the fear of inflation is growing.

I am going to quote shortly from the Financial Times of 23rd July, 1962:

"In Germany, hardly a week passes without some new official warning being circulated about the danger in which the country stands of becoming greatly over-extended. In Switzerland the authorities have recently taken quite vigorous steps to slow down the tempo of economic activity. The Netherlands, too, has been deeply concerned about overheating.

"In Japan, which can fairly claim to have put up the most miraculous of all the miracle performances, the authorities have been so worried about the stresses generated by the latest surge forward that they have been half persuaded that stability should replace growth at the top of the list of economic policy shaping priorities."

Even in Italy, certain indications that it is tending to get too near the rocks for comfort have been the subject of a series of warnings from the Central Bank.

The reason I quote that passage is to show that this fear of inflation is very widespread today. All those countries, except Japan, are Common Market countries, and they are all afraid of over-expansion causing inflation. Inflation can be caused by rising costs, by rising prices, or by rising incomes. I dealt with that on the Finance Bill, and I do not intend to repeat what I said. It is obvious, of course, that rising wages and other rising costs can cause inflation.

I want to draw attention to the fact that the Central Bank emphasises the part played by public expenditure in causing inflation. On page 13 of their report, the following passage appears:

The growth of public expenditure and indebtedness has been mentioned as a second feature of importance from the monetary point of view. It is not only from employers and employees, farmers, credit institutions and consumers that restraint is needed. The public sector is a large and growing source of demand, and it is clear that a persistent tendency for the public and the private sectors combined to consume and invest so much as to strain the economy's resources would lead to a worsening of the balance of payments and running-down of external reserves to a possibly dangerous extent.

An Cathaoirleach

I want to draw the Senator's attention to the fact that public credit and inflation do not properly arise on this Bill.

Professor O'Brien

I was trying to relate public expenditure to its general monetary consequences——

An Cathaoirleach

It is quite in order to refer to those matters, but to discuss them in detail is obviously not in order.

Professor O'Brien

I am very sorry; if I am out of order, I cannot continue my speech.

Mr. McGuire

At present our thoughts generally are turned to an examination of the many facets of our national life. On this Bill, there is hardly any fact of Government policy which we cannot discuss. All our live organisations are keeping their policies and activities under constant review in order to adapt them to prevailing conditions and keep them efficient and up to date.

We have already had from Senator Hayes some remarks on the question of education, and other Senators will undoubtedly discuss different phases of our national life. I intend to deal with one subject. One of the most serious and responsible activities of Government policy is handling the important industrial and trade projects, and the investment of money in these projects. I should like to suggest that the whole system of Government investment—grants, subsidies and so on—in industrial and commercial undertakings, needs careful re-examination in the light of past experience and the future situation which we will be facing. We have turned from one world in the past and we are facing a completely new one in the future.

In the past, there have been a number of cases where there was waste and misapplication of the help given and the moneys invested in enterprises of all kinds by the Government. When I say "misapplication," I meant it only in its commercial and economic sense. I feel, for instance, that moneys invested in the past in connection with hotels were really wasted and misapplied. We are bolstering up old buildings which are falling down. We are merely adding lounge bars or something like that, which is really only a waste of good money. It would be better, in some cases, to refuse the grants and insist on completely new buildings being put up.

Of course, looking forward, we must once more refer to the Common Market era which calls for a completely new outlook on everything we do. I see to-day there is a reference in the report of An Foras Tionscal in which there is the same general picture. Investment and grants in the past have been fairly satisfactory as regards the number of industries established, and it is satisfactory to note that the number of failures has been comparatively small when compared with the all-over figure.

It must be borne in mind that many of the industries set up, relied for their viability on tariff protection. I know that the CIO are studying the question of how many of those industries will be viable in the new conditions, and what can be done to make them live in the future. Recently there have been proposals in terms of millions of pounds for manifestly doubtful projects, which are causing great uneasiness in the minds of many citizens.

Someone remarked to me to-day, perhaps unfairly, but nevertheless, I think it expressed a rather popular current feeling, that the more noughts in the sum involved, the easier it is to obtain Government acquiescence in some projects. I hasten to explain that it is agreed that large expenditure was necessary up to now, in the early stages of our industrial development, in order to give us the infra-structure on which to build our industrial operations. But I think we have now really got past the stage when such projects are necessary.

It seems to me, on that subject, that it is proposed to invest large sums in undertakings where important conditions and factors which existed when these projects were first mooted have altered; where expenses have been much greater than originally expected; where the commodity is not present in the quantities expected and where the price of the commodity has considerably altered in the meantime. It would seem to me that such projects cannot be economically justifiable at the present time.

There is a danger very often with governments that once a project is launched it becomes a sort of political obligation and even sometimes a social obligation to proceed with it, whether it is felt, on second thoughts, to be really justifiable. It is a case of throwing good money after bad. There have been several cases where quite big projects were put in motion which were found, after a short time, not to be very successful. Nevertheless, there was, of course, the usual local pressure, of all kinds, which we all understand because of the question of employment and the social implications of ceasing the operation.

I think that in future we cannot afford to put more and more money into projects that have shown themselves not to be economically and commercially justifiable. That is one of the things in respect of which I should like to feel in the future that we would make it a firm policy to ensure that anything we do and go into will justify itself and, if it does not justify itself, we should not be afraid to fold it up.

There are cases, for instance, where I think it would be more justifiable to devote money that is at present being used in that way to making roads and to providing social amenities and other things that would have attraction and a long term productive effect on, say, tourism. It has been said that we spent too much money on roads in the past. We may have done so, but they are a great asset to the country and they are not a waste of money. They may be items that may be put into a latter category in our spending programme but I would rather see money spent in that way than put into manifestly uncommercial and uneconomic undertakings, even if they are actually in operation.

There is also a justification for a fresh examination of our State companies. You will remember last week in the Seanad that the Minister, when replying to a remark of mine, said that these State companies are not making much profit. I think that that is almost an understatement, in some cases, anyway, although there are some few that are showing themselves to be making a profit. But, considering the large amount of capital that has been put into these enterprises, they undoubtedly do not justify themselves by ordinary commercial standards.

On the other hand, there again, as I have already said, many of our big organisations such as Aer Lingus, CIE and the Sugar Company, which is a profit-making company, have justified themselves inasmuch as they were necessary and that private capital could not have given us these companies in the size in which they were needed and with the speed with which it was necessary to set them up.

We have certain people who are talking about setting up State companies in order to employ our people, and so on. I think it would be very foolish of us to follow that sort of policy and especially to invest in commercial enterprises that would not be touched by private capital. It seems strange that we should put public money into enterprises in which private individuals will not risk their own money. There was a time and a place for that but I think that time is past in any assessment we should make in the future.

Before I conclude, I should like to pay a tribute to many of the men who are running our State companies. In fact, very many of them are so good that they are giving a false impression of what these State companies are capable of doing. There is no doubt that at present, for instance, in Aer Lingus and in CIE, we have very active chairmen running these companies. They are working under a sort of limelight. They are new to their jobs and the whole idea is comparatively new to this country.

If you look at other countries you will see that State bodies do eventually turn into bureaucracies. They are rigid. They are not original. Even in England, they have had to get private enterprise to run these State bodies in order to give them some vitality and life. They had all settled down into a sort of moribund and bureaucratic way of working. That has happened in other countries. There is no individuality in them. There is no originality, eventually, in these slow and very heavy-moving machines.

It is only by the old system of competition that we can make continuing progress. In fact, in our own CIE, I think the time will eventually have to come when competition will have to be reintroduced into transport in this country. Then CIE can take its place and let the best man win. Then you will get the best people.

I heard only yesterday of a case where people have to go to work in Dublin at 4 a.m. There are no buses. They have to walk miles to their work. If transport in buses was open to private enterprise local people would be found to run transport to meet such needs. However, I do not want to appear to be critical of CIE because I think a very good job is being done there. However, I think an impossible task has been given to the Chairman of CIE. In every way, he is up against so many difficulties that I feel the only way is to break it up and to let these difficulties be handled by different people in their own way.

I shall conclude, as I started, by saying that I trust that an examination will now be made of our whole philosophy based on our experience in the past and facing into the future. I trust that we shall not waste any money in capital investment in industry unless we see it will bring a commercial return because it is on the commercial basis that the good or the uselessness of a project can be judged.

Professor Stanford

Those of us who are interested primarily in education will welcome the very great increase in interest in education that has been shown within the past year or so both inside and outside Parliament. The debate in the Dáil on the Estimate for the Department of Education was, I think, the fullest and the widest we have had for many years. This year we have had the much criticised but, I think, useful report of the Council of Education and, further, quite recently the Taoiseach and other Ministers have assured us of their determination to encourage education and improve our educational standards in the near future.

I do not intend to try to traverse the whole subject this evening. I recognise the value of time in the Seanad. But I should like to emphasise two particular aspects of our general educational policy. It has been said again and again and I must say it once more that we do need increased provision for secondary education. The more intelligent pupils of our national schools must in some way or another be assured of getting the career their talents deserve in secondary schools and beyond. There is an appalling wastage of talent throughout the country, due to the fact that these more intelligent children very often have to stop their education at the age of 14. It is a criminal waste of talent, and I do urge the Government to improve that position as soon as they possibly can.

On the ratio of secondary education, a great deal of research has been done in other countries. Some useful facts and figures appear in a publication: Investment in Education in the Republic of Ireland produced by the federation of Secondary Schools. Some figures from this were mentioned and challenged by the Minister for Education in the Dáil in volume 195 of the Official Report, column 2190. In fact, the figures are correct, I understand. They are produced by UNESCO, and they show very clearly that the ratio, what is called the secondary enrolment ratio in Ireland, is 36 per cent, in England 88 per cent and in Japan—this has been challenged but if the method of taking these statistics is sound—it is 98 per cent.

Whatever the basis of these statistics may be, we are very behind-hand in our secondary education. However, whatever we may hold about the correct way of interpreting these statistics the Minister for Education has said quite emphatically at column 2187 of volume 195:

In that connection I should like to state unequivocally it is the aim of the Government that every child likely to avail successfully of post-primary education should have the opportunity of doing so.

I only say: Let it be soon; let it be effective.

There are some other figures in this useful publication. Table Ten gives the total expenditure on education in selected countries. Of a selection of ten European countries together with Japan and the United States it is sad to see that the percentage of the national income which we spend is lower than in any other country except Sweden. It is not very much lower, I must agree, than some of the other countries. But only Sweden, with 3.1 per cent., is below ours, which is 3.4 per cent. If we look at it from another point of view, educational expenditure per inhabitant in sterling, we find ourselves the lowest of all with £3.6 per head of the population. Now, of course, the answer to that is that we are a relatively poor country. In the United States they spend 32.6 dollars per head of the population on education. But though the Minister may very justly say that we cannot, like Scotland, spend £19 per head, or like Northern Ireland £12 per head of the population, yet he would, I think, agree that the following is a fair argument. Even the poorest decent parents like to spend as much as possible on the education of their children. I do not think the Governments in this country have been behaving like decent parents in the past. Even though our income will never be high, I think that the share spent on education could be improved. It is being improved I know. The Minister for Finance and the Minister for Education have already made very considerable improvements, but we must keep up the pace.

Here is the most ominous fact of all. If one quoted figures for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics the percentage would be very much higher again in comparison to ours, because I understand that Soviet Russia spends very much more per head of the population on education than even the United States. That is the most ominous fact of all. We should as soon as possible provide at least secondary education for all of our more intelligent pupils.

The second objective, limited in a sense but I think important, is that we must get more teachers of mathematics and science quickly into the country. The only quick way of doing that is to recognise the years of teaching service of Irish teachers in Northern Ireland of Great Britain. I think a good many teachers would come back from Britain and Northern Ireland if they could get recognition of their years of service there. At the moment they would have to begin at the beginning, and it is utterly impossible for them to do that. I do not quite understand the reluctance to grant this concession. I would like an explanation why there is this apparently strong reluctance to recognise years of service in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. An arrangement has been made with undeveloped countries like Nigeria and others to encourage Irish men and women to go and teach there and then come back. That is very laudable. But to meet the problem of the grave shortage of mathematics and science teachers the other step is very necessary.

Now I should like to turn to the useful report of the Council of Education. It has been criticised for not being progressive enough, for being too conservative. I propose to confine my remarks to my own area which is narrow in a sense, the teaching of the classics. The report is admirable to my mind on the teaching of the classics. It shows a profound grasp of the value and purpose of a classical education. From that point of view I do not think it could be better. I should like to quote paragraph 248 of the Report:

In view of the current widespread controversy over the classics in other countries, it is desirable for us to face up to the direct question: are the classics worth studying in our secondary schools? Our answer to this question is unreservedly in the affirmative. The civilisation of Europe is built on that of Greece and Rome; our basic concepts in philosophy, ethics, law, history, literature, drama derive from these twin sources. The languages of Greece and Rome are eminently worthy of study, not merely for their content—the ideas they enshrine— but also for their form, the way in which they express those ideas. Even a modest acquaintance with typical writings of the ancients can be an education in itself: to be entirely ignorant of the classics is to be unaware of the origins of European culture. There is also the utilitarian argument that for students of the liberal arts at the university (e.g. history, law, modern languages and literature, philosophy) a foundation in Latin at least is indispensable.

Now I am not reading that in a spirit of competition with the sciences or the study of the Irish language or anything else. There is no need for one discipline to quarrel with another discipline in education. The educational cake is big enough for a slice for each. I simply quote that paragraph in support of the classics. If we neglect our classics we will be less suited to take our place in the great European Commonwealth which we all hope is opening before us and in which we all hope Ireland will play a leading and an honourable part. It would be a great pity if in the jostling for place in our curriculum the classics were neglected. On that account I welcome this paragraph.

I should also like to emphasise that at a time when so many people say that the classics are declining and wasting away, the figures quoted by the report show that this is not so. At paragraph 245 they give the latest available statistics, those for the 1957 examinations. These show that of 6,283 boys presented for the Intermediate Certificate, 5,724 or 91 per cent took Latin. Of those presented for the Leaving Certificate 89 per cent took Latin. Those taking Greek, which some people think is almost disappearing, represented 16 per cent in the Intermediate Certificate and 16 per cent took it for the Leaving Certificate. For girls the figures are, for those taking Latin in the Intermediate Certificate, 37 per cent, and for the Leaving Certificate 38 per cent. There is a sad final sentence in this paragraph: "No girl presented Greek for either examination." I am sorry about that because in many ways Greek is a more attractive and more stimulating study for girls than Latin. In Britain a great many girls' schools have taken to Greek now for the first time in their history within the past 20 years. I only wish it was possible to stimulate it in Ireland in the same way.

I must not quote much more, but I should like to add one critical paragraph about the method of teaching classics. In paragraph 250 it states:

The programme prescribed by the Department of Education is narrow and uninspiring; in Latin, for instance, a set book of Caesar's Gallic War for the Intermediate Certificate, with a few hundred lines of Virgil's Aeneid; a book of Livy or Cicero, with another of the Aeneid for the Leaving Certificate, some odes of Horace being added for the honours course.

They go on to say:

This seems, indeed, a very faint reflection of the Renaissance ideal.

That is full of poignancy for anybody who sees the underlying implication. The Report goes on to make recommendations which I hope the Department will implement. But one serious matter is neglected—and here I appeal to the Minister for Finance as well as to the Minister for Education because it involves an enormous waste of money. I refer to the fact that many of the school children who are working for Latin or Greek in the Intermediate Certificate and in the Leaving Certificate are passing by simply learning fifth rate translations off by heart. That is true, and I will stand over it. I had the experience of trying to help a young pupil some years ago who was going for the Leaving Certificate. She was attending one of the best schools in Dublin. The edition recommended to her provided her with a fifth rate English translation for every word of a book of Virgil. It seemed to me that she had been more or less told: "Learn that off carefully and you will be all right."

Is it not a deplorable state of affairs from every point of view that when children are to be taught the glories of the Latin language, and when the splendours of its poets are being unfolded before them, what they are mainly getting is fifth-rate English, quite inadequate and giving them the most deplorable opinions of a great Latin poet like Virgil? It is, unfortunately, true that a great deal of time in our schools, not merely in the poorer schools but even the better-off schools, are getting boys and girls to learn off this kind of wretched rigmarole by rote. If the Minister can think of a better way of wasting money I would be surprised. This is bad for the reputation of the classics. It is also bad from the point of view of the teacher, because the children develop a contempt for people who are prepared to rely on mere memory works without teaching the language properly. And it gives them a contempt for education as well because they come to think that if this is the best the great poets of Rome can produce what is the use of a literary education?

All this is not merely a useless waste of time. It is harmful. It is sapping the morale of education—and it could be stopped very simply. It could be stopped by a stroke of the pen by the Minister. There are two ways. One of which is drastic, but I recommend it: Abolish set books in Latin and Greek. Instead of having to know prescribed portions of Latin and Greek, it would be test enough for them to translate easy, unprescribed passages. That would solve the problem. It has been done in Northern Ireland and elsewhere with success. There would be a terrible outcry among the teachers if it was done, I regret to say, but I think it would be worth doing.

The other remedy is simpler, although it would also be unpopular. Make it impossible to get a certificate in Latin or Greek by mere parrot-memory work as at present, by reducing the amount of marks for prescribed works drastically. If the Minister can have that done a great deal of time and energy would be saved, and for everybody who loves the classics he would be doing a good day's work. I feel very deeply about that. I feel in many cases that these figures for passes and honours in Latin and Greek are illusory on that account. I feel the real treasures of the classics are not being opened to our school children.

I want now to turn briefly to the humble Estimate for Miscellaneous Expenses on pages 68 and 69 of the Estimates. These include one detail on which I do not intend to ask any question. I refer to: "Bounties for Triplets and Centenarians—£150". They have not increased this year, as we will all be sad to see. On the next page we have something on which I should like to comment, the grant to the National Theatre Society, the Abbey Theatre. A total of £18,000 has been allocated to them this year. As we know, a new theatre is to be built at a cost of something like £360,000. It has been very slow in going ahead. It is over 11 years since the old theatre was burned down. But now we hope in two years to have a fine theatre. We are assured that the shape of the auditorium approximates to a plan which was advocated by a member of this House many years ago, the late Senator W. B. Yeats. One welcomes that. He was a man of vision in the theatre, and one may rejoice that his ideals will be respected. Here I want to ask a question. The Abbey Theatre is going to receive this magnificent new building, partly at Government expense. Will the quality of the acting and the producing of the plays in that theatre be worthy of that building?

The Abbey was once a world-famous theatre, as we all know. It is no longer so. I do not want to exaggerate. The Abbey Theatre still produces respectable, rather humdrum productions week in and week out during the season. But it is no longer enterprising. It is no longer of interest to the theatrical world at the higher level. It no longer has a high reputation abroad. In fact, its reputation has greatly declined. I feel that the Government has some responsibility to the taxpayers in this. Some of their money is being spent on this theatre. It is partly a private company, I know, but it is subsidised by the tax-payer. I want to ask can and will the Minister for Finance do something to improve the policy of the Directors of the Abbey Theatre?

At the moment it is not worthy of the name of the National Theatre. I should like a nominee of the Government, if possible, to be put on the board of Directors, perhaps, a nominee of the Arts Council, who would do something in this magnificent new theatre that is going to be provided, partly at our expense, to regain the ideals and standards of the old Abbey Theatre. There is a need for younger direction, for a more progressive policy, if the Abbey Theatre is to be fully worthy of its title, as the National Theatre. I would, therefore, ask the Minister whether he feels justified in taking any action in this matter, and if he does feel justified, whether he would suggest some means of restoring a theatre which was once one of the glories of the city of Dublin and is now certainly not one of the glories of the city of Dublin.

Miss Davidson

The Appropriation Bill with its vast sums of money is not a matter on which I can say very much. I would like, however, to refer to one or two small things which set me wondering as to whether or not they represent wise spending. I mentioned them on previous occasions.

Tourism seems to swallow up a sum of money much of which, to my mind at least, could be put to better use for the future good of the country. The sum involved this year is something over a million pounds and is almost twice what was available last year. Perhaps, if I could get some idea of what amount of money this expenditure brings back by way of increased revenue, I might be easier in my mind on the subject. I still feel that grants given and used to make good hotels into super luxury hotels are, in this country, a very doubtful investment. I am firmly of the opinion that it is the less luxurious hotel that will attract the type of tourist most likely to benefit the country—the good spenders— and these to my mind are the ordinary people, reasonably prosperous, who come to us from Britain and near European countries.

My experience is that very many of our medium class hotels still remain drab and depressing. Bedrooms are dull and depressing, and the drawing-rooms, so called, are dreadful Victorian monstrosities. If a day turns out to be wet I imagine visitors would not be too unhappy to remain indoors if these rooms were tastefully furnished and the visitors could chat, read or play cards in comfortable surroundings. Bathroom and toilet accommodation in some of these hotels still leave a great deal to be done. Senator McGuire said earlier, and I fully agree with him, that where many hotels have availed of the facilities for improving their premises, too often too much is spent on building elaborate bar and lounge bar accommodation or the erection of pretentious exteriors which have the effect of making more obvious the dullness of the interiors.

Let me turn to another aspect of tourism. I should like to say that if we desire to attract tourists to our country there should be some co-operation between the departments which control the ways and means of spreading tourist propaganda. To refer to our most famous beauty spot—Killarney and district—I should like to say that, having visited the area recently, I was struck by the great improvements which have taken place there since I visited the area many years ago. Yet listening to a programme on Radio Éireann recently I was shocked at the recorded interview of two prominent visitors from England who gave a detailed chronicle of the drawbacks attaching to a holiday in Killarney and its vicinity. In fact, the interview made it clear to intending visitors that the area should be avoided like the plague. It was conceded, but with no great enthusiasm, that the scenery was quite nice, but that did not in the minds of those being interviewed make up for the awful evening dullness they had endured. This may have been how these two visitors found Killarney and Kerry generally, and such a thing might happen in any interview. It struck me, however, that common gumption would have suggested to the broadcasting authorities that this interview should never have been put on the air. I think all of us will know that it is not the view expressed by the majority of visitors to the area. I may add that those interviewed were wise enough to mention their own home district and its attractions.

As mentioned on another measure, I should like to see a good deal more money going in grants to vocational schools for the training of apprentices and technicians so that we will be able to stand up to the competition which we will have to face in the years before us. The training of such technicians is a very valuable and enduring investment, provided we can keep them in this country by the expansion and improvement of employment opportunities.

In regard to secondary and unicersity education, I should like to raise a small point. We are all aware that many Irish professional people, trained in our Irish secondary schools and universities, have had to emigrate to earn their livelihoods. In a good many cases they send their children back to be educated in Ireland. Some of these children have been born in Ireland but some of the Irish secondary schools charge extra fees for them, and, if my information is correct, the university fees are much higher to the parents of those young children. This is a great hardship on Irish people who are forced by economic circumstances to live outside their homeland but who wish to give their children an Irish education. Could the Minister indicate if it would be possible to rectify that situation?

I referred before to the money put into defensive equipment. Last year, it was £149,051; this year, it is £450,000. I cannot see that by any stretch of imagination this is a wise expenditure of good money. How much of this equipment will be scrapped at the end of the year and what measure of value will the country have received from the expenditure? I should like to hear from the Minister what he feels we get in return for this expenditure. Does he really feel that in an emergency the equipment provided by this expenditure or its use by our Defence Forces will bring any kind of safety or protection or, indeed, be of practical value anywhere?

I should be very happy indeed, and I am very sure that many others would be quite happy also, if there were a curtailment of a great deal of expenditure on tourism and on defensive equipment, and the savings given over to vocational education for the training of our technicians. That is a point I mentioned before.

In the matter of research and standards, I can approve of the increased grants in this direction. There is still a great deal of work to be done in the matter of standards for Irish goods. I am particularly interested that there should be research into the problem of children's clothing, with particular reference to suitability and durability of fabric, sizing and design of garments. In this regard, I should also like to advocate the use of fireproofed materials for the making of children's clothing, especially nightgowns, party frocks and underwear.

In the Irish Press of 24th inst. there is a report of a speech made at a conference in Belfast by the President of the British Medical Association in which he says:

The 20,000 cases of burns a year with the death of 20 children a day could be reduced by the compulsory use of non-inflammable goods. To make this obligatory we need only the necessary Government support.

The Minister should give immediate attention to this problem.

Also in regard to the work of the Institute of Research and Standards, I would once again refer to school uniforms which are costly items in most families. I have seen school uniforms, very expensive uniforms supposed to be made to measure, which were no more related to the child's measurements than would be a rick cover lifted at random. The high cost of the garment was, no doubt, fixed with an eye on the cost of eventual alterations which the manufacturer knew would be necessary because, apparently, he was not using a pattern, or, if he had such a guide, it was not related to the human anatomy.

An Cathaoirleach

These are hardly matters of ministerial responsibility.

Miss Davidson

I thought the Minister might advise the Institute of Research and Standards to take them up. I was going to continue and say that I should like if whoever was responsible could see that standards were fixed for such important items as these. Another matter I referred to earlier was the need for designing and publicising of Irish standard marks which would guide people to choose an article bearing this sign, knowing it has been produced with care, and passed as of good quality, design and workmanship.

Let me return to something I raised with the Minister on the Appropriation Bill in 1958, the question of waste in our administration and in our national institutions. I mentioned on that occasion that I had discussed the problems of waste with persons who have experience of national institutions. All admitted on that occasion that there was waste. Others said that there was appalling waste. Recently I got the same answer. On that occasion I suggested to the Minister the official issue of posters calling on the public to help to achieve prosperity by the elimination of waste.

In his reply at column 1361 of the Seanad Debates of 24th July, 1958, the Minister said:

I quite agree ... that there is a great deal of waste both public and private. If I could do anything to eliminate waste, I should be very glad to do it and now that it has been drawn to my attention I shall certainly see if we can have a campaign of that kind.

I should be glad to hear if the Minister still feels some good would come from an anti-waste campaign and, if so, when he is likely to put it into operation.

Mr. Brosnahan

I think we are all agreed that at this important juncture of our history, education must assume a new importance, and must have a new orientation, because it is almost trite to say that education is a sine qua non, that it is indispensable in the matter of economic development.

Senator O'Brien mentioned in a very salutary way the necessity for keeping an eye on total expenditure. With that, we are all in agreement. Our capacity to expend more, to spend more, will depend a lot upon our capacity to produce. I should like to put forward a formula. Our performance might be equated on the multiple of our ability, multiplied by training, multiplied by motivation. Our ability is there, but we use our ability, as Senator Stanford has pointed out, by educating the top layer and neglecting those who, by their aptitude and ability, could better themselves individually, and better the prosperity of the community as a whole.

We have been engaged over the years in educating the top layer and neglecting the source of ability way down the line Has our motivation been geared to the situation? I doubt it very much. I shall make reference to that in a moment. Have our training facilities been capable of expanding as much as will be required in the future? I doubt also if sufficient facilities have been made available for the proper training of our people.

In relation to ability, I should like to say that it is a most fantastic situation that the majority of our school children have to leave formal school at the age of 14 years. We are completely out of line with world thinking in this matter. The fate of those children dates back to a report introduced in 1934, as a result of an interdepartmental inquiry into the employability of children. The most extraordinary recommendation was made on that occasion by a group of people, not one of whom had ever sat in front of a class, that children of 14 years were neither physically nor mentally immature for employment.

That is completely and absolutely contrary to world opinion, as I have said, and it is completely and absolutely contrary to the opinion of any experienced teacher who has been dealing with children in that age group. Children of 14 years are not fitted physically or mentally for employment.

We often hear that it is better to get children to remain in school through encouragement after they have reached the age of 14 than to introduce legislation to raise the school leaving age in order to keep children in attendance compulsorily. Whilst the idea of encouragement is most praiseworthy, still it is my experience that the raising of the school leaving age by Statute is essential. Even though 80 per cent of those over 14 might remain in school through their own enthusiasm or through the initiative of their parents, still the fact that 20 per cent would leave at 14 and enter into some form of dead-end employment should be a matter of concern to educationists and sociologists. The majority of that 20 per cent would ultimately emigrate to the large cities of Britain where they are often regarded as being representative of the people of this country as a whole.

In the interests of the good name of the Irish race, I think such children who might be inclined to escape extra schooling should be kept in attendance at school because of their immaturity. Further, I feel that the discipline of school would be most important, particularly during adolescence. Psychologists tell us that school at this stage would have a stabilising effect.

It is important that our schools should produce mature human beings and that the majority of our people should receive adequate education. The late Sir Richard Livingstone in a work entitled "Some Tasks for Education", the publication of which almost coincided with the Butler Education Act in Britain in 1944, stated: "We cannot be content with mere political democracy, or with the State where the few are civilised and the many merely employed, fed and amused; we aim at a community where life throughout is first rate". We cannot achieve that position in this country as long as we release thousands of our children every year at the age of 14. As proof of our being out of step with authoritative opinion on the matter of the raising of the school leaving age, I would refer to the recommendation of the commission on "Youth Unemployment", presided over by His Grace the Arch-bishop of Dublin, in which the raising of the school leaving age to 15 and ultimately 16, was suggested. Rev. Dr. E. F. O'Doherty, Professor of Psychology in University College, Dublin, has also stated that: "We fail to recognise that intelligence reaches its zenith at about 15 or 16 years of age and that the production of mature persons should be the aim of education". UNESCO has also stated it as one of its aims that the school leaving age be raised to 15 in every country throughout the world. Further, in the recent report "15 to 18", commonly called the Crowther Report, it was recommended that the existing school leaving age of 15 years in England and Wales be raised to 16 and that, later on, compulsory part-time education would be required by all up to the age of 18.

We often hear our system of education referred to as being the finest in the world, but it must come as a rude shock to everybody to realise the fact that in Russia the school leaving age is 17 and, quite recently, newspapers carried an item announcing that in Hungary the school leaving age had now been raised to 16. I feel, from my own experience of teaching children in the 12-14 age group, that they would benefit individually from further schooling after 14 and that the community would benefit by drawing on the resources of ability which are available within the country but are now being lost through too early school leaving.

Another matter in which we should have a deep interest is that of Vocational Guidance. Everybody is talking about it at the moment and I do think that we should not let this occasion pass without making some reference to it, especially in view of the fact that the recent Report on Secondary Education issued by the Council of Education stated that nothing further was required beyond the informal advice given by teachers to school leavers at the present time. Speaking from experience of dealing with school leavers, I think that some system of Vocational Guidance is absolutely necessary. Many of the children leaving our schools have no idea as to what they are fit for; neither have they any idea as to what avenues of employment might be open to them, whereas in Britain and Northern Ireland there is a wonderful service available through the Ministry of Labour by which information is given to parents and school leavers about careers and avenues of employment. Here, there is not the slightest help to children in the matter of job selection and whilst teachers may be well disposed in the matter they have not the expert knowledge for assessing aptitudes since the techniques of such assessment do not come within the scope of their training. It should be in the interest of the nation to ensure that school leavers do not enter into dead-end employment in which they have little interest and out of which they subsequently drift and emigrate. One constructive way of stemming emigration would be to give children leaving school some objective at which they might aim and for which they might be trained. This would create in children an incentive and ensure them employment in stable positions in this country.

In the matter of post-primary education, generally, there is quite a lot of confusion in the whole field. Children leaving national schools at 14 years have little idea as to what type of further education they might be suited. I have often seen children sitting for an entrance examination to a secondary school at the beginning of June, sitting for the Primary Certificate about a week later and then sitting for an entrance examination to a vocational school on the following day. This type of confusion should not exist within one Department. One would imagine that the qualification necessary at the end of one course of education should be quite sufficient to satisfy entrance requirements in either of the two branches.

The post-Primary scene is somewhat untidy and co-ordination seems essential. The call for co-ordination is not a recent one and we find reference made to it by Dr. Walter Starkey, Resident Commissioner for National Education as far back as 1902. It is important that we should re-examine the education of adolescents since they hold the key to future prosperity. Given pupils with proper motivation and an enthusiastic teaching personnel, I think that we have a very bright future ahead. It is generally stated that our sources of ability are rich but with proper motivation, the economic situation could be vastly improved. I do not think that at the moment the motivation factor is entirely satisfactory since our system of education reminds one of a watch without a mainspring. One twists the key at the top and the different pieces swing around in all directions; without the mainspring, there is no concerted drive. Similarly, with our three disjointed branches of education we lack a co-ordinated drive. Rather than have these branches lying in mechanical juxtaposition there should be proper articulation between them. With proper articulation and proper motivation, the abilities of our people could be exploited for significant development.

With regard to the training of our people, we should have a very definite pattern of training. If we look at the curriculum of our secondary schools we make the interesting discovery that every subject taught in the run-of-the-mill vocational school is already on the curriculum of the secondary school. For example, I will just go down through the list of subjects for the Intermediate: Gaeilge, English language, Latin, Greek, French, German, Italian, Spanish, history and geography, mathematics, elementary mathematics for girls, science, agricultural science, domestic science, music, art, drawing, manual instruction, commerce; and for the Leaving Certificate: Irish, English, Latin, Greek, French, German, Italian, Spanish, history, geography, mathematics, applied mathematics, physics, chemistry, physics and chemistry, agricultural science, general science, botany, physiology and hygiene, domestic science, art, drawing, music, commerce. There is a system of education that was entirely vocational in itself, yet it was neglected through financial malnutrition.

It was a system which could have been developed and yet it took another Act in 1930 amending the Ministry of Agriculture's Technical Instruction Act of 1899 to bring in something that was there already. Due to financial neglect, this system never properly operated. One big reason why that system could never have been properly operated was because of the small grants paid to the conductors of secondary schools. They could not afford to employ teachers to teach that wide range of subjects but had to concentrate on five or six. The second reason was the examination fetish. They had to get results and thought it unwise to scatter their activities over such a wide field. Instead, they concentrated on five or six subjects. If confusion in education is allowed to continue we will not get very far in a developing situation. We did get by—got by for years—on an inadequate system, but we will get by no longer. The situation could very well arise in the future, unless we have proper motivation, proper exploitation of the ability of pupils and proper training, that we will become just a labour hatchery for other countries which have gone ahead in development through education.

I would just raise one more point— that is, motivation as far as the teaching profession is concerned. I would say that no system of education can rise above the level of its teachers. You can put them in the finest buildings, give them superior equipment, even give them children of ability, but what they will produce will not rise above the level, the incentives and the enthusiasms of those teachers. I do not think that at the moment teachers can be super-enthusiastic because of their treatment. It may come as a shock to An Seanad to know that the level of salary available to a single man teacher or a woman is £810 a year, even after 40 or 45 years' service. That is a deplorable situation. How can one expect enthusiasm with a salary of that kind when one compares it with what is obtainable in other forms of employment?

Teachers do not have sufficient confidence in their own qualifications. That is why they have been demanding down the years some link between the training colleges and the universities. It is absolutely essential that people engaged in the training of youth should have confidence in their own qualifications and their own capacity. A man who has not, can never make progress, cannot inspire. He will blight rather than inspire. It is absolutely essential to create that link between the training colleges and the universities. A practical example of meeting such a requirement was passed through this House a short time ago in the Pharmacy Bill, one section of which established a link with the National University for the education of pharmacists. Senator Ó Donnabháin over there knows how much the veterinary profession was uplifted by having a link with the university. Agricultural Instructors and many other professions which are linked with the university are given a new status. If it is thought essential that those dealing with livestock—and livestock are most essential because the development of the livestock industry is a very fundamental part of our economy— need a university link and if it is thought that those dealing with the physical side of the human being by dispensing medicines and prescriptions require a link with the university, what is wrong with the demand by teachers for such a link in view of the fact that they have to deal not alone with the physical side of human beings but with the more important side, the mind? Why is a university background denied to teachers in their training? I say these things with no little emphasis because if there is one service which is basic to everything we do in the country and to everything we will be doing in future it is education. Education is the basic service on which all the other professions and our economy must ultimately lean.

I would finish with the reiteration of Senator Stanford's remarks on the deplorable state of affairs as disclosed in the UNESCO Review of Secondary Education which has just come out. We find that expenditure on education per head of our people is £5.6. In England it is £13, in Scotland £19, in Northern Ireland £12 and in the United States £32.8. While we cannot hope to have parity per head of the population with certain countries which are far wealthier than ourselves, I think, if we are to survive at all in the free for all that is going to take place in a very short time, we must look to our educational system from the point of view of exploiting the talents of our people, stimulating motivation and ensuring that there is adequate training for all those who by their aptitude can benefit themselves and the community by it.

Pádraig Ó Siochfhradha

Is Bille ríthábhachtach é seo. Tá riachtanas leis na milliúin chun gnótha na tíre, leas na tíre agus rialú na tíre a riaradh, a choimeád i gceart agus a dhéanamh go slachtmhar, ach sa bheagán cainte a dhéanfhadsa ní rachaidh mé ceangailte sa gceist sin ná sna milliúin. Ba mhaith liom caint ar ghné amháin d'obair an Rialtais ar dóigh liomsa go bhfuil moladh tuillte ag an Rialtas ach diomá orm mar gheall ar ghné eile den obair chéanna. Táim ag caint i leith múineadh agus leathnú agus buanú na Gaeilge. Fanfaidh mé air sin amháin.

Le tamall maith fada tá Rialtas againn in Éirinn agus nuair a cuireadh an Rialtas san ar bun tuigeadh dóibh agus tuigeadh don phobal go raibh dualgas náisiúnta, dualgas, b'fhéidir, ní ba thábhachtaí ná dualgaisí eile, tártháil a dhéanamh ar an teangain, an loit agus an laige a bhí tagaithe uirthi a leigheas agus í a bhuanú arís ina caint ag pobal na tíre agus mar chómhartha aitheantais ar dhúchas agus ar náisiúntacht na treibhe a labhrann í.

Tá a lán oibre déanta biodh go bhfuil daoine ann a dhéanann gearán agus cáinteoireacht. Ní ghéillimse don ghearán ná don cháinteoracht san. Ar ghnéithe áirithe tá a lán lán saothair déanta, saothar torthúil. Tá a lán daoine go bhfuil buíochas tuillte acu i leith na hoibre san.

Ba mhaith liomsa an Rialtas, na Rialtaisi a tháinig go dtí seo agus a dhein a gcuid féin in Éirinn, a mholadh mar gheall ar an méid a dheineadar agus dheineadar cuid mhór. Tá anois eolas ag pobal na tíre go bhfuil an Ghaeilge ann agus bhí a lán daoine sa tír nach raibh a fhios acu aon rud mar gheall air sin. Tá san leigheasta. In ionad gan é bheith ann anois is minic í bheith ina hábhar díospóireachta agus argóna idir daoine, cuid acu ag ceapadh go bhfuil an iomad á dhéanamh ar a son, agus an chuid eile againn ag ceapadh nach bhfuil leath a dhóthain á dhéanamh. Tá a lán á dhéanamh. Tá eolas ar Ghaeilge fairsing, leathta ar fud na tíre ar fad. Tá a fhios ag a cáirde agus a náimhde go bhfuil an teanga ann agus géilleann siad gurbí príomh-chómhartha na náisiúntachta agus na pearsantachta atá againn mar threibh agus mar dhaoine in Éirinn í.

Tá an mhéid san déanta. Tá an obair ag dul ar aghaidh. Sé an locht atá agamsa ar an scéal ná go bhfuil obair na scoileanna agus teagasc teangan na Gaeilge á loit ar fad mar ná bactar puinn a mhíniú do phobal na hÉireann, d'ógra na hÉireann, do dhaoine na hÉireann, cad chuige an múineadh san. Múintear an Ghaeilge go maith, go cliste agus go hoilte i mbeagnach gach scoil sa tír. Sna scoileanna tá múinteoirí atá an-dáríre agus tá ag éirí leo i leith na teangan a thabhairt uathu féin do na daoine óga ar fud na tíre, ach tá easnamh mór ar an scéal: ná fuil— nó is beag má tá—aon teagasc á dhéanamh i láthair na huaire ar cad ina thaobh ar cheart do dhaoine an Ghaeilge a fhoghlaim nó cad é ba cheart dóibh a dhéanamh leis an teangain chun leas a bhaint as an teangain a thugann na múinteoirí lena lán dua agus saothar fada dóibh. Sin é pointe an ghearáin atá agamsa agus ag a lán daoine eile cé go bhfuil an Ghaeilge á múineadh go forleathan agus an obair á déanamh go maith agus go cliste ina lán cásanna sa mbunoideachas, sa mheán oideachas agus— sí seo an áit is laige ar fad—san oideachas ollscoile, ach pé scéal é tá an obair ar siúl.

Tá rialacha an Rialtais féin ag cabhrú leis an obair san. Is beag seirbhíseach Stáit atá á cheapadh anois ná fuil eolas, a bheag nó a mhór—agus is mór é go minic—aige ar an teangain náisiúnta. Bíonn siad cumasach, eolasach ina taobh, agus sásta, is dócha, úsáid a bhaint aisti más gá nó má éiríonn an caoi lena h-úsáid.

Sin ceann de ghnéithe an ghearáin, go ndéantar an saothar mór san ar fad: go nglactar daoine óga isteach sa stáitsheirbhís, togha na Gaeilge acu, ach ón lá a théann siad isteach, ach i gcás rud beag éigin, b'fhéidir, nach mbaintear aon úsáid as an eolas san ar an nGaeilge a bhíonn acu. Is féidir a rá liom nach é gnó an Rialtais aon ní eile a dhéanamh ach eolas na teangan a thúirt do dhaoine, ach tá an rud seo i gceist agus ní ceart é ligean le faillí. Tá cuspóir an náisiúnachais i gceist sa teangain, sa Ghaeilge. Sin é an cómhartha is so-fheicthe, an cómhartha is soiléire, gur daoine ar leith sinn, gur náisiún ar leith sinn, gur treibh ar leith sinn a bhfuil cultúr na gcianta lastiar dinn agus go raibh an cultúr sin fite fuaite ceangailte isteach sa teangain sin a milleadh, a loiteadh agus a tiománadh as eolas na ndaoine agus as úsáid na ndaoine sna 300 nó 400 bliain a thárla go dtí gur bhuamar neaspleáchas ár dtíre féin.

An locht a deineadh sa tréimhse sin ó aimsir Éilis Shasana i leith, is cuspóir agus is dualgas cinnte do aon Rialtas a bhí againn in Éirinn a leigheas, na bearnaí a dhúnadh agus an fás a chur ar siúl arís. Mara ndeinimid é sin cén saghas daoine a bheidh ionainn i gceann glúin nó dhó eile? Beimid inár Meiriceánaigh nó inár Sasanaigh, gan aithint orainn seachas aon dream díobh san agus sinne, b'fhéidir, ag maoímh asainn féin gur "Irishmen" sinn.

Ba mhaith liom a thiomáint isteach in aigne an Rialtais go bhfuil an dualgas san ceangailte orainn feidhm a bhaint as an dteangain dúchais chun náisiúntacht, pearsantacht agus cultúr cinnte ár gcreidimh a fhorbairt agus a thúirt chun chríche. Ba mhaith liom, fé mar a dhein mé fé thrí cheana, moltaí áirithe a thúirt go ndéanfaí a leithéid sin. Cad é an rud nó cad é an gníomh d'fhéadfadh an Rialtas a dhéanamh sa chás?

Tá a lán ar chumas rialtais a dhéanamh. Tá a fhios againn cad a dhein rialtas a bhí i gcoinne na Gaeilge agus i gcoinne an náisiúntais. Sna tréimhsí a tháinig romhainn d'éirigh leo an Ghaeilge agus na comharthaí dúchais a thiomáint amach as furmhór na tíre. Teastaíonn uainne anois go ndéanfaidh Rialtas linn féin a mhalairt de scéal agus dúchas, cultúr, aitheantas náisiúnta agus pearsantacht náisiúnta a chur i bhfeidhm arís sa phobal 's againne atá fós gan ró-thuiscint ar cad a chiallaíonn na neithe sin agus cad tá i gceist íonta.

Tá a lán cainte fé láthair ar dul i gcomhargaí—dul i gcomhpháirt poiliticiúil, b'fhéidir, le tíortha na hEorpa. Má dheinimid beidh ceisteanna móra eile maidir le h-aitheantas náisiúnta ann. Im thuairimse níl aon leas le déanamh againn ach claoi níos déine ná riamh le ceist na Gaeilge agus le ceist an chultúir agus an tradisiúin náisiúnta. Is ar na neithe sin amháin a mhairfidh cáil na hÉireann feasta má théimid i gcomh-cheangal le tíortha na hEorpa.

Ba mhaith liomsa an smaoineamh sin a dhul go doimhin in aigne lucht treortha agus lucht stiúrtha na tíre. Má théimid i gcomhcheangal le tíortha na hEorpa imeoidh na teoranna, imeoidh neithe eacnamaíochta, imeoidh rudaí eile agus beidh meascán de Eoraip uilig go léir agus comh-aontas i ndlí agus i neithe eile ach caithfidh an cine Gaelach maireachtaint ar rud éigin agus níl maireachtaint i ndán dóibh ach tré na tréithe a bhaineann leis an gcine a chleachtadh.

Sin é an nidh ba mhaith liomsa a thiomáint isteach in aigne an Rialtais agus a rá go bhfuil coinne acu agus coinne ag lucht na Gaeilge le gníomh dá réir ón Rialtas. Ní leor go mbeadh Gaeilge ag daoine chun dul isteach sa Státseirbhís. Ní leor é sin. Sé an rud is riachtanaí ná go mbainfí feidhm as an eolas sin atá acu chun obair na tíre go poiblí a dhéanamh sa teangain sin fé mar a dhein na Sasanaigh le Béarla agus fé mar a dhein na hIsraelaigh le teangain a bhí marbh le míle bliain agus is í sin anois an teanga bheo oifigiúil san Israel. Thárla an rud céanna i dtaobh na Fionlainne. Cuireadh an teanga fé chois sa tír ach anois tá teanga mhuintir na Fionnlaine in uachtar go hoifigiúil agus í dhá cleachtadh. Dá mbeadh an caoi ag na Bascaigh sa Spáinn nó na Briotánaigh sa bhFrainnc Thiar atá againne is beag an baol a bheadh acu san gníomh a dhéanamh go mbeadh toradh air agus fás air—go mbeadh aitheantas oifigiúil na teangan i bhfeidhm ar a bpobal féin.

Ba mhaith liomsa iarraidh arís— dheineas cheana é—go mbeadh obair na Roinne Oideachais ar fad le Gaeilge. Níl aon duine go bhfuil baint aige leis an Roinn Oideachais nach bhfuil an Ghaeilge aige — b'fhéidir bainisteoir fánach thall is abhfus ach d'fhéadfaí gach aon chuid de obair na Roinne sin a dhéanamh i nGaeilge. Deintear cuid di i Roinn na Gaeltachta. Ba cheart go mbeadh eadar-litreacha i nGaeilge idir an Roinn Oideachais agus Ranna eile agus dá mbeadh neithe mar sin dhá ndéanamh go seasmhach raghadh sé i bhfeidhm ar na Státseirbhísigh gur maith an rud dóibh cleachtaithe a dhéanamh ar an dteangain sin a thugadar isteach sa Státseirbhís leo agus nach mbaintear puinn feidhme aisti.

Ach sé an príomh-rud tharsta san go léir go raghadh sé i bhfeidhm ar an bpobal go bhfuilimid dáiríre i dtaobh na Gaeilge, go bhfuilimid maoíteach as ár gcuid eolais ar an Ghaeilge agus go bhfuilimid beartaithe gur le Gaeilge a raghaidh an tír seo agus treibh na tíre seo pé chómhargadh nó aontas eile a bheadh ar siúl san Eoraip. Ba mhaith liomsa go ndéanfadh an Rialtas machnamh ar na neithe sin.

Molaim na rialtaisí ar son an méid atá déanta acu cheana féin. Molaim na múinteoirí scoile agus na coláistí. Molaim éinne a dhein aon dhícheall ar son na Gaeilge mar bhí sé ag obair ar son beatha agus sár-bheatha an chine. Is dóigh liom gur ceart go leanaimis leis sin agus gur i ngéire agus i dtreise a bheadh ár n-iarrachtaí ar nós na nGiúdach in Israel a dhein in deich mbliain teanga a bhí marbh le míle bliain a chur i bhfeidhm arís agus ina teanga oifigiúil do dhaoine nach raibh aon fhocal dí cheana acu. Ba cheart dúinn machnamh a dhéanamh ar na neithe sin agus ár ngníomharthaí a dhíriú ar an rud atá le tuiscint as na cainteanna sin.

Dónall Ó Conalláin

Tuigtear dom gur cead do Sheanadóirí caint faoin mBille seo ar ghné ar bith de chaiteachas an Rialtais ach ón méid atá cloiste agam go dtí seo shílfeadh duine gurab é Vóta an Roinn Oideachais a bhí ós comhair an tSeanaid. Is ar an ábhar céanna a chaithfidh mise labhairt inniu. Tá den ádh ormsa nár lorg mé cead cainte go dtí seo mar cuid mhaith dá raibh le rá agam tá sé ráite cheana ag an Seanadóir Ó hAodha, an Seanadóir de Stanfort agus an Seanadóir Ó Brosnacháin.

Do thagair an Seanadóir de Stanfort don tsuim mhór a cuireadh i Vóta an Roinn Oideachais sa Dáil agus don bhorradh a bhí tagtha ar an spéis i gcúrsaí oideachais ag an bpobal i gcoitinne. Labhair 36 Teachtaí sa Dáil ar an Vóta sin agus an té a léifeadh an Tuarascáil sé an rud is soiléire a tuigfí dó as, go mbeadh na Teachtaí ar fad, cuma cén taobh den Teach a bhfuil siad air sásta i bhfad níos mó a vótáil don oideachas ná an £22,000,000 a hiarradh orthu. Is cruthú é sin, dar liomsa, go bhfuil curtha ina luí ar na daoine ar deireadh thiar gur fiú airgead a chaitheamh ar oideachas.

Thárla go tráthúil, díreach leis an linn chéanna, go dtáinig an foilsiúchán sin amach ar thagair an Seanadóir de Stanfort dó agus a thug figiúirí bunaithe ar staitistíocht UNESCO agus a chuir abhaile go soiléir ar na Teachtaí agus orainn ar fad a mhéid atá muide ar deireadh i gcomparáid le tíortha eile maidir le caiteachas ar oideachas. Ar ndó, sé tuigfí uaidh agus óna figiúirí a bhí ann go raibh Rialtas na tíre seo fíor-ghortach i leith oideachais. Anois ní hé rialtas na linne seo amháin atá i gceist agam ach gach aon rialtas ó bunaíodh an Stát.

Do thagair na daoine a labhair cheana don tábhacht ar leith atá ag baint leis an meán-oideachas agus ós meán-mhúinteoir mé féin caithfidh mé teacht leo gur tábhachtaí go mór atá sé san aois atá anois ann ná mar bhí ariamh cheana. Más léir óna figiúirí ar thagair mé dóibh cheana gur ró-bheag an caiteachas atá againn ar oideachas fré chéile, is mó go mór is cás liomsa a laghad a caitear ar an meán-oideachas. Fiú amháin sa tír seo, gan bacaint le figiúirí tíortha eile, ní chosnaíonn meán-dalta ar an Stát-Chiste ach £33 sa bhliain i gcomparáid le ós cionn £90 in aghaidh gach dalta gairm-oideachais. Ar ndó is lú go mór na figiúirí sin ná figiúirí tíortha eile. Ach is dóigh go dtig liom glacadh leis gur eol dúinn go léir gur éatroime go mór a luíonn soláthar meán-oideachais ar an Stát-Chiste sa tír seo ná in aon tír eile. Is ionann sin is a rá go bhfuilimid ag iarraidh daoine fásta, daoine atá in ainm a bheith lán-oilte, a chur amach ar an saol as meán-scoileanna na tíre seo ar leath an chostais, nó níos lú ná sin féin, atá ar a leithéid chéanna i dTuaisceart na hÉireann agus in áiteacha eile. Ar ndó, d'fhéadfadh sé go bhfuil na tíortha eile seo ag cur a gcuid airgid amú agus go bhfuil muide i bhfad níos gaiste agus níos stuama maidir le caitheamh airgid ach tá difir chomh mór sin ann gur ar éigin a d'fhéadfadh sin a bheith fíor.

Nuair a bhreithnímid an scéal go hiomlán ní fada le lorg na cúiseanna le go n-éiríonn leis an Rialtas seo costas chomh híseal sin a bheith ar an meánscolaíocht sa tír—costas £33 sa mbliain in aghaidh an dalta. Tá, i dtosach, an an rud a luaigh an Seanadóir Ó Brosnacháin, go bhfuil tuarastal na múinteoirí níos ísle anseo, thríd is tírd, ná mar atá sé i dtír ar bith eile.

Maidir leis an deontas ceannsraithe nó "capitation" tá sé go fíor-íseal. Níl aon chúram ar an Rialtas foirgintí a sholáthar. Ní ghlacann an Rialtas mar chúram air féin múinteoirí a thréanáil le haghaidh na meán-scoileanna. Do tagradh cheana do scéal na scoláireachtaí. Ar éigin atá aon tír in Iarthar na hEorpa is lú a bhfuil scoláireachtaí le fáil ann ná sa tír seo.

Níl mé le aon éileamh a dhéanamh i dtaobh tuarastail ach an méid seo, gur ábhar díomá le na meán-mhúinteoirí i gcoitinne nár cuireadh i bhfeidhm go fóill na moltaí a rinne an Coiste um Thuarastail a cuireadh ar bun ag an Aire Oideachais agus ag an Aire Airgeadais roinnt blian ó shoin agus a mhol Bord Eadrána a chur ar bun a réiteodh ceist seo na dtuarastal do na trí bhrainse múinteoirí.

Anois, i gcás na ndeontas ceannsraithe nó "capitation", is náireach an scéal é nach ndearnadh aon mhéadú air sin ach uair amháin ón mbliain 1924 anuas—méadú 60% nó mar sin.

Marach na saintoscaí atá ag baint le cúrsaí oideachais sa tír seo agus an chaoi a bhfuil cúrsaí eaglasta agus cúrsaí oideachais fite fuaite ina chéile, níorbh fhéidir le cuid mhaith de na scoileanna maireachtáil ar an airgead atá a fháil acu. Caithfear a admháil gur ar scáth caondúthracht agus deá-thoil bráithre, ban rialta agus sagart atá an Rialtas ag teacht slán ar an mbeagán sin airgid. Ní creidiúint ar bith don Rialtas gur mar sin atá an scéal.

Maidir le foirgintí a sholáthar, mar adúirt an Seanadóir Ó hAodha ar ball, tá cúiseanna staire leis sin a d'fhág mar oidhreacht againn ón sean-aois gur ag oird bheannaithe agus sagairt atá na foirgintí agus go gcaithfidh siad na foirgintí a sholáthar. Fiú amháin níl aon deontas le fáil—deisiúcháin. Ní domsa is cuí a rá an ceart an scéal a bheith mar sin nó nach ceart. Feictear dom nach foláir an scéal sin a réiteach má tá an forleithniú a bhfuiltear ag súil leis le teacht ar an meán-oideachas.

Tá rud amháin ar leith ar mhaith liom tagairt a dhéanamh dó, sé sin, tréanáil nó oiliúint meán-mhúinteoirí. Is ar éigin atá rialtas ar bith taobh amuigh den tír seo nach bhfuil freagarthach, a bheag nó a mhór, i dtréanáil a chuid meán-mhúinteoirí. Ach sin mar atá an scéal. Ní bhíonn lámh ná páirt ag an Roinn Oideachais i dtréanáil a gcuid meán-mhúinteoirí. Leagann an Roinn Oideachais síos cáilíochtaí áirithe, cáilíochtaí acadúla, nach mór a bheith ag duine lena cháiliú mar mhúinteoir. Caithfidh céim ollscoile a bheith aige agus ard-teastas in oideachas. Anois mar cháilíochtaí níl aon locht le fáil agamsa orthu. Tá siad ar fheabhas. Cuireann an chéim in áirithe go bhfuil caighdeán sách ard bainte amach ag duine i roinnt ábhar léinn agus ins na cúrsaí le haghaidh an ard-teastas oideachais tugtar sár-oiliúint i modhanna múinteoireachta, i stair, i bhfeallsúnacht agus aroile. Ach tá taobh amháin den scéal agus déantar faillí ann.

Is cuid den chúrsa oiread áirithe ama a chaitheamh le múinteoireacht le haghaidh an ard-teastais. Cad is gá don chéimí óg a dhéanamh a bhfuil sé de rún aige bheith ina mheán-mhúinteoir agus ar mhaith leis an t-ard-teastas a dhéanamh lena aghaidh sin? Sé an chéad rud a chaithfidh sé a dhéanamh ná siúl ó scoil go scoil ar fud na cathrach seo nó ar fud Chorcaí nó cathair na Gaillimhe ag iarraidh bainisteora a thógfas isteach é agus a thabharfas dó oiread uair a chloig mhúinteoireachta a shásós údaráis na hollscoile. Mara n-éiríonn leis é sin d'fháil, ní ghlacfar leis i rang an ard-teastais. Agus má éiríonn féin leis, níl aon chinnteacht, níl aon deimhniú aige go bhfaighidh sé rang sásúil nó ábhar sásúil. Tharlódh, b'fhéidir, go gcuirfí duine a bhfuil céim den chéad scoth aige san eolaíocht isteach i rang staire 2E, ábhar nach bhfuil baint dá laghad aige leis an gcéim atá bainte amach aige. Ní fháiltítear rompu ina lán scoileanna. Tá a fhios agam féin scoil a bhfuil ós cionn 30 muinteoir ar fostú inti agus ní ghlactar go hiondúil ach le mac léinn amháin ann. I gcuid bheag eile de na scoileanna glactar go fonnmhar leo agus scoil nach bhfuil ró-mhór ghlacfadh sé le seisear nó seachtar acu agus chuirfí cuid mhór d'obair na scoile orthu. Déantar é sin chun airgead a shábháil don scoil. Is ar éigin a bhíonn fhios ag na tuismitheoirí gurab é sin an saghas duine atá ag múineadh a gclainne. Anois tá sin níos measa ná an rud eile. Sin an scéal a chaithfear leigheas, ach ní leigheasfar é gan an Roinn Oideachais páirt a ghlacadh san obair.

Séard a mholfainn féin go ndéanfaí roinnt múinteoirí sinsearacha a roghnú, múinteoirí cruthanta cáilithe, agus go mbeadh sé de cheart ag gach múinteoir acu sin mac léinn amháin a ghlacadh chuige mar a bheadh sé ina phrintíseach aige agus socrú a dhéanamh leis an mac léinn sin bheith i láthair ag cuid áirithe ranganna agus roinnt áirithe den mhúinteoireacht a dhéanamh faoi stiúradh an mháistir sin, mar adéarfá. Cuir i gcás, céimí óg a mbeadh matamaitic aige, bheadh sé sin ina phrintíseach ag múinteoir matamaitice agus leanfadh sé an cúrsa a bheadh ar siúl ag an múinteoir sin. D'fhéadfadh sé rang a thógáil cúpla uair sa tseachtain —é a thógáil san áit ar éirigh an máistir as agus leanúint den chúrsa faoi stiúradh an duine eile agus mar a chéile do na hábhair eile. An múinteoir a dhéanfaí a roghnú mar mháistir bheadh íocaíocht ar leith ag dul dó sin as an oiliúint a thabharfadh sé don mhac léinn agus seo é an áit a dtagann an Roinn isteach sa scéal mar is iad sin a dhéanfadh an íocaíocht. Má bhíonn ar an Roinn Oideachais airgead a chaitheamh, cinnteoidh sé sin go ndéanfar an rud i gceart agus go ndéanfar cigireacht cheart air. Tá súil agam go gcuirfear é seo faoi bhráid an Aire. Is náire go deo an chaoi a bhfágtar céimithe óga bochta ag iarraidh uaireanta múinteoireachta dóibh féin. San áit nach nglactar isteach ach aon mhac léinn amháin faoi láthair, d'fhéadfaí 15 nó b'fhéidir 20 macléinn óga a thógáil isteach agus oiliúint i gceard na múinteoireachta a thabhairt dóibh.

Rinne an Seanadóir Ó Brosnacháin tagairt cheana do fhostú múinteoirí ins na scoileanna. Tá fhios agaibh go bhfuil forálacha ann nach gceadaíonn ach oiread áirithe múinteoirí a aithint le haghaidh tuarastail i scoil ar bith. Bhí an "quota" sin maith go leor blianta ó shoin nuair nach raibh oiread éilimh ar eolaíocht ná ar theangacha Eorpacha. Tá sé maith go leor fós do scoileanna nach mbíonn ar an gclár acu ach a 5 nó a 6 d'ábhair. Ach scoil ar bith a dteastaíonn uaithi rogha níos leithne a bheith aici dá cuid daltaí níl an "quota" sách leathan di agus tá cúngrú á dhéanamh aige anois ar an méid ábhar is féidir do scoil a sholáthar dá cuid daltaí. Tá fhios agam féin roinnt scoileanna agus cuid de na múinteoirí iontu gan aon tuarastal breise acu. Ar ndó, is sagairt nó bráithre nó mná rialta iad ach, mar sin féin, ní ceart go n-iarrfaí orthu é sin a dhéanamh agus tá fhios agaibh nach bhfuil aon mhúinteoir ar fostú ag scoil nach bhfuil gá leis. Níl scoil ar bith chun tuarastal a íoc le héinne mura bhfuil gá leis. Má tá scoileanna ann agus daoine ar fostú iontu gan aon tuarastal breise acu ón Rialtas, nach cruthú é sin gur gá réiteachaí eile a dhéanamh maidir le na forálacha seo? Sé an chaoi a bhfuil an scéal nach mbíonn iontaobh ag an Roinn as na múinteoirí ná as na bainisteoirí scoile. Dá mbeadh lániontaobh acu as na bainisteoirí scoile níor ghá "quota" ar bith. Ach sé chaoi nach bhfuil an iontaobh sin astu agus is caoi eile é ag an Roinn le airgead a shábháil ar ndó.

Tá bealaí eile ann freisin. Is ar ghortachas an Rialtais atá an locht, don chuid is mó, nach ndearnadh téacsannai sa Ghaeilge a sholáthar nuair is mó a bhí gá leo ins na meán-scoileanna. D'fhéadfadh siad é sin a dhéanamh ach cur chuige. Im thuairimse is rud é sin a chuir siar go mór ar an iarracht chun na meán-scoileanna a Ghaelú. Sé an easnamh sin is mó is cúis le nach ndeachaidh an Ghaeilge chun cinn ins na scoileanna.

Rinne an Seanadóir de Stanfort tagairt do aitheantas a thabhairt do sheirbhís i gcéin. Cuir i gcás go dtéann múinteoir go Sasana nó go tír eile agus go dtagann sé arais tar éis roinnt blian, ní tugtar aon aitheantas dó ar an seirbhís atá déanta aige thall. Ba cheart aitheantas a thabhairt dá leithéidí sin ach níor dhein an tAire Oideachais é sin fós.

B'fhéidir gur díchéillí an mhaise dom bheith ag gearán faoi na rudaí seo ar fad mar tá fhios agam go bhfuil plean nua geallta ag an Aire Oideachais dúinn. Seans maith gur plean é a chuirfeas deireadh leis na hábhair ghearáin so atá againn agus a bhí againn le blianta agus gur leigheas é ar na hoilc ar fad atá ag cur siar ar chúrsaí oideachais. Tá súil agam ar aon chuma gur plean é a chuirfeas atheagrú ceart ar an gcóras oideachais, idir bhun-oideachas, meán-oideachas agus gairm-oideachas sa tír seo.

Tá rud amháin eile ar mhaith liom tagairt dó. Is rud é ar thagair an Seabhach dó ar ball. Sé sin ceist seo na Gaeilge. Déantar a lán léirmheas ó am go h-am ar an méid airgid a caitear ar an nGaeilge agus shílfeá ón gcaint a bhíonn ag roinnt daoine ina thaobh go gcaithmid na milliúin púint sa mbliain ar obair na Gaeilge. Ar ndó, ní mar sin atá. Éinne a dhéanfas na Meastacháin a scrúdú ó bhliain go chéile feicfidh sé nach gcaitear go sonnrúch ar obair na Gaeilge ach isteach is amach le leath-mhilliún púnt. Sin a méid. Ar ndó, is deacair a rá cé mhéid den Vóta Oideachais, cuir i gcás, atá ag dul don Ghaeilge. Ní féidir an Ghaeilge a dheighilt óna lán rudaí eile ach rudaí atá go sonnrúch ag dul don Ghaeilge, cuir i gcás an Rannóg Aistriúcháin, Oifig an tSoláthair, ní chosnaíonn siad sin thar leath-mhilliún púnt agus nuair a chuimhnítear go bhfuil caiteachas iomlán dhá chéad milliún púnt sa mbliain ar an Stát, is beag le rá an leath-mhilliún sin, agus is fíor-bheag le rá é ar ábhar chomh tábhachtach le slánú na teangan atá ina cuid thábhachtach de bheartas náisiúnta an Stáit.

Is dóigh dá gcuirtí ceist ar dhuine ar bith, stráinséar sa tír seo, cérbh iad príomh-aidhmeanna náisiúnta an Stáit seo is dócha gurbh éard adéarfaí an Teora a chur ar cheal agus an Ghaeilge a shlánú an dá cheann is mó le rá. Admhaítear go h-oifigúil gur mar sin atá an scéal, sé sin, gur buaine ar fad an tairbhe atá le fáil as slánú na Gaeilge agus an tairbhe a thiocfadh as don tír seo mar náisiún ná as aon bheartas eile agus, mar sin féin, tugtar neart airgid don tionscalaíocht, don talmhaíocht, don loingseoireacht agus do sheirbhísí eile, iompair agus eile, agus séantar ar an Ghaeilge. Sna cúrsaí seo tuigim go gcaithfimid bheith foidhneach agus fanacht le tuarascáil an Choimisiúin atá i mbun na h-oibre sin.

Ach sé an fáth ar tharraing mé ceist seo na Gaeilge orm in aon chor go bhfuil institiúid nua sa tír seo agus gur ar an institiúid sin atá bás nó beatha na Gaeilge ag brath. Ar ndó, is do Theilfís Éireann atá mé ag tagairt— Telefís Éireann a bhfuil na milliúin punt dár gcuid airgid sáite ann. Anois de réir mír 17 den Acht Údaráis Radio, 1960, cuireadh de cheangal ar an údarás radio go gcabhródh sé leis an mbeartas náisiúnta i leith na Gaeilge, ach níl aon chosúlacht air go dtí seo go bhfuil siad chun cabhrú leis an mbeartas sin, ach a mhalairt ar fad. Go dtí seo níl ach uair a chloig amháin sa tseachtain de Ghaeilge le cloisteáil ó Thelefís Éireann as 40 uair. Más comhlíonadh é sin ar an dualgas a cuireadh ar an údarás radio faoi mhír 17 den Acht Údaráis Radio, 1960, níl ciall ar bith leis mar chabhair don Ghaeilge.

D'fhéadfadh sé cabrú le cúis na Gaeilge fiú amháin gan níos mó ná uair de Ghaeilge a bheith ann. D'fhéadfhadh siad cabhrú ach cláracha a chur ar siúl i mBéarla agus dearcadh Gaelach a bheith iontu. Ach fiú amháin i gcuid de na cláracha a bhí ann, cláracha díospóireachta agus eile, ba léir ar na daoine a roghnaíodh chun na cláracha sin a líonadh gur daoine iad nach raibh dearcadh Gaelach acu.

Níl mé ag iarraidh bheith míréasúnta faoi seo, faoi mhór-chodán den am a bheith tré Ghaeilge. Fágaim faoi dhuine ar bith é nach leor uair a chloig amháin de Ghaeilge sa tseachtain ó institiúid atá in ainm a bheith ina sciath cosanta ar anam agus ar chultúr an náisiúin. Dá mba ag iarraidh an teanga a mharú agus na hiarrachtaí ar fad a rinneadh ar a son go dtí seo a chur ar ceal, ní fhéadfaí é a dhéanamh níos fearr ná an córas telefíse atá againn a bhunú. Is ar an Rialtas atá an dualgas féachaint chuige nach ndéanfar an tseirbhís telefíse a úsáid chun an teanga a mharú agus chun na haidhmeanna náisiúnta agus an obair náisiúnta atá déanta go dtí seo a chur ar ceal.

Professor Quinlan

I am sure I am voicing the opinion of many Senators when I say how unsatisfactory we find it to have to grapple with all the various Votes in one global debate, especially when we see that the Dáil took many weeks over those Votes. In fact, it is only half-way through the various Votes now. That provides an opportunity of examining carefully the activities of the various Departments, of examining their contribution to the national effort, of making suggestions and, more important still, of getting replies from responsible Ministers.

Of course, it would be altogether wrong and unfair to expect the Minister for Finance, who is charged with taking this Bill through the House, to be able to answer for all the Departments, and I might say that in past years he did not attempt to do that. The debate has largely come to the stage that we can ventilate a large number of grievances but rarely or ever do we get any satisfaction. The grievances just get lost in the Official Report and they stay in the archives to be drawn out again on the next Appropriation Bill when we can still give forth the same views and the same grievances. It is a great pity that some effort is not made to sectionalise this Bill. I understand that such an effort was made in previous years, before my time, probably six, eight or ten years ago when you had a major debate on education, agriculture and two or three other things with the responsible Minister present in the Seanad. This is a new Seanad starting out on its career, be it long or short, and I would appeal to the responsible Minister to remedy this unfortunate position. Perhaps next year it may be possible for us to have a debate along those lines so that we can really have, at long last, a debate on education. Many members have raised the subject of education here to-night. The Minister for Education is not present and we did not expect him to be present, so where do we go from there?

Putting down motions on the Order Paper is just a sheer waste of time. I put down a motion dealing with the very important topic of farm apprenticeships. It stood there for a full year and still had not been dealt with. When the present Seanad came into being, I put it down again immediately. It can be seen that it is next on the Order Paper and that means, I suppose, that it will be taken in another year. Surely that is a complete waste of the talents, time and opportunity of the Seanad for full and frank discussion? If Senators are prepared to go to the trouble of making out the necessary material for the presentation of a case for a motion, the least the Seanad could do is to provide time for that motion. I suppose one of the greatest grievances we have here is the lack of facilities for any type of public discussion.

I have been looking at the number of sittings we had, and I reckon that we sat at most for 12 days, probably of four hours duration, that is, about 50 hours in the past 12 months. I do not think that is a record of which we can be proud. On the other hand, it is something that we seem to be incapable of doing anything, about at the moment. The least we can do during the time at our disposal is to deal with a few of the Estimates with which we are deeply concerned. In so doing, we may be able, at least, to get our views on paper and hope they will have some slight effect.

Turning to the Estimates before us, the first Estimate we must take is the Estimate on page 64, relating to Law Charges. I want to make the statement that I am very thankful to the Leader of the Opposition for the very full ventilation he gave to my case in Dáil Éireann yesterday. I have now instructed my solicitor to transmit a full copy of the depositions to His Excellency the President of Ireland, together with a full report of the Dáil and Seanad debates, and the reports which are available of the proceedings.

I am appealing, as a simple citizen who should enjoy the privilege of at least full and impartial justice, to the highest authority in the land, our President, who is the guardian of our Constitution which, after all, is the only safeguard we have. I am appealing to him to take whatever steps he can to ensure that this outrageous discrimination to which I have been subjected will not happen again.

I would be failing in my duty in reporting on this, if I did not say that the statement made in Dáil Éireann yesterday by the Taoiseach when he said that the case was transferred in the interests of the accused—Parliamenttary decorum does not allow me to say what I think—was absolutely untrue. This so-called privilege extended to me cost me an additional £100 in costs on this case. The total costs came to over £250 and had to be borne by me since in any case brought by the State under the Road Traffic Acts costs have to be borne by the person concerned. I think this flagrant violation of justice should be brought to the notice of our President. I know he will take appropriate action. The statement that it was transferred in the interests of the accused, by implication, makes an outrageous reflection on the integrity of Tipperary juries and on the distinguished Judge, Judge Fawcitt, and on their behalf I wish to protest——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I must ask the Senator to relate these remarks more closely to Law Charges.

Professor Quinlan

I will, because this is really under the heading of Witnesses Expenses, for which there is the sum of £12,000, and for General Law Expenses, £20,000. We are voting money to provide those Law Charges. Leaving my own case aside, I wish to raise the question of the many motorists who have been unjustly prosecuted under the section of the Act which we had here——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator may not criticise legislation.

Professor Quinlan

I am just pointing out the way the legislation is implemented, apparently in a way that results in very great costs to the State and which is very much at variance with the views we hear in the Seanad as legislation passes through. I suggest that when the President has studied this matter, perhaps, in his wisdom he may see fit to suggest to the Government that they should set up an impartial committee drawn from both Houses to investigate fully the many disquieting things that have happened during the past few months. I might mention especially the case of this unfortunated Guard who was dismissed from his post. Whether there is a connection——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I will not allow the Senator to discuss individual cases in the Garda Síochána.

Professor Quinlan

I am suggesting that might be part of the general inquiry which might result. To get on now to the other Votes, again, we have the fact that our whole approach at the moment is dominated by consideration of the Common Market and of the many far reaching implications it will have for this country, and the many challenges and problems that it holds. I think we are not altogether making the headway that we should make in preparing for this. We should compliment the work that has been done by the Committee of Industrial Organisation and the very workman-like approach it has adopted by appointing specialist committees to look into the various aspects of our industrial life and to see how these are likely to be affected by the transition and to make a full inquiry and report on it.

That is excellent but it is only one of the facets. We should attack the others in the same way. In the agricultural organisations there is a feeling that the approach in agriculture is not nearly as open and that it is very much more controlled by the Department than the CIO. In the CIO most of the group leaders are outside the Civil Service. On the other hand, the Department of Agriculture does not seem to give the groups working in this field the recognition they deserve and it has not taken them into a full partnership basis to share the responsibility of the investigation. I know those groups from experience and I know the very devoted citizens who are giving a great deal of their spare time to this work. I would appeal for a partnership approach. I pay the highest possible tribute to the higher civil servants. They are completely weighed down with work so that they have not got time to sit back and study the matter in its entirety. That is a great pity and I wonder if anything can be done to lighten the load of these leaders so that they can make the contribution of which they are capable. In those circumstances it is a great pity there is not more co-operation between the CIO and outside groups who are studying the same problems and doing it voluntarily in their spare time.

The report "Investment in Education" which was produced by the Federation of Irish Schools is an excellent document, very carefully documented, the statistics having been taken from unimpeachable sources. These men put in an endless amount of time on this and went to endless pains to show the sources of their information. They are responsible headmasters. I know many of them and they are brilliant graduates, devoted to their work as teachers. They have produced an excellent document and one which does not pull any punches. It does not seek to gloss over our feelings or the paucity of investment in education, compared with other countries. For that it drew the ire of the Minister for Education in an attack which should be deplored. He could have said that the figures were substantially those from international sources, but you could vary that slightly and see the overall picture that emerges from that. He could have said that, and promised to try to get more of our budget devoted to education in the future. But in place of that there was an effort to discredit the voluntary work of those people.

That is really deplorable. It has been answered by the headmasters in a circular which we all got and which again does not pull any punches. It just states that the facts and figures are taken from unimpeachable international sources and, therefore, are immune to either political or any other attack.

In the collection of those figures the Minister's own Department no doubt was largely responsible for supplying the Irish figures. It is a pity that in such circumstances there would not be more co-operation and the suggestion made by the Department of Education to this body: "Come, let us work together and discuss this. Can you do some more work on this? Can we get other teacher bodies in this country doing the same?" That would be a wonderful effort and one that would augur very well for the future, for is there any official in the Department of Education who has anything like the amount of experience one of those headmasters has of the educational problems the country faces?

We have the same unfortunate approach in dealing with the university. We are regarded as being suspect, as if we were trying to get something for the university in the debates to which we are not entitled. Our stand is simply that we are in this country when the vast majority of us could be earning twice, three times or four times our present salaries elsewhere, because we believe in the country and we believe we have a contribution to make here. We are prepared to draw extra work on ourselves at all levels so as to make that contribution. I can say without fear of contradiction that on investigation it would be found that the average output of work hourly and in intensity and in effort of our staffs is by outside standards regarded as colossal. It is almost as colossal as the trade union worker here who works 60 hours a week compared with 40 or 45 hours in other countries. We have only been able to keep up standards by being prepared to face hours that in other countries have long since been regarded as not reasonable to ask from any person.

Following this same tendency we had in the debate on the Restriction of Imports Bill this afternoon the Minister for Industry and Commerce denying that he wanted any outside guidance in formulating opinions on the various ideological and other problems posed by trading with communist nations. When I suggested that we had in the university some people who had made a life study of this and were acknowledged internationally far and wide as leading authorities in this field, I was told: "Well, we have all the expertise that we want, not in the Department of Industry and Commerce but in the Department of External Affairs." That is, we got the brush off.

I would appeal to the Minister for Finance, because he has the most enlightened Department we have, because it is the Department from which the grey book on economic development emerged, which in its way blazed a new path and set new hopes of a co-operative approach to our problems in which there would be a place for everyone able and willing to work—I would appeal to the Minister for Finance tonight to see before it is too late that the co-operation of all is enlisted to investigate the problems confronting this country, especially the radical need for change now that we are up against the reality of the common market.

I can assure the Minister, speaking for the graduates of the National University of Ireland, and I think my colleagues from Trinity would speak equally for that University, that we will not be found wanting whenever it comes to co-operation, because we have a real stake in the country. We know the contribution education can make and we are prepared to make it and to condone some of the unthinking or unlearned insults we have to put up with at times, knowing that by doing that we can make our contribution to the national welfare. It is increasingly realised by all countries today that the future depends on education. The unskilled man is almost a has-been today. His number is going down in America and elsewhere and everything is going over to the skilled man.

We find that the poorer a country is in material resources the more careful it must be with its human resources. It is sad to look back on over 40 years of our own government and realise that that problem has not been faced. Probably up to 1945 we were not too bad, because the rest of the world had not awakened to this challenge. America had and Russia was awakening and, of course, Germany had. The war brought about an educational revolution and other countries immediately saw this and started to devote considerable portions of their resources to their educational development. We, however, were content with a little increase of 5 per cent here and 10 per cent there, and so emerged the sad figures that have been produced by the Federation of Irish Schoolmasters showing how far behind we are. Relatively speaking, we are much farther behind than we were in 1945. Consequently, the leeway is much greater, and unless we get down to it immediately I do not see how a small country coming so late in its development can hope to successfully hold its place in the common market.

We should be thankful that already there are many very able Irishmen fully trained abroad and occupying high positions in education in other countries who are anxious and eager to come home but we will have to have inducements to get those people home. Limited inducements are given in some technical fields at present, but they are rather unrealistic when they suggest the giving of incomes of around £1,000 a year to a man to come home whereas he is probably already earning double that figure abroad. We are in a sellers' market and must realise that we have to provide reasonable salaries for those people who are prepared to come home and help to build up our wealth. Nothing can be more frustrating for a fully-trained man than to return and find that he has dissipated his whole effort due to the lack of some elementary ancillary means of doing his job. That arises very much in the case of school teachers who have had training abroad and come to us here. We refuse to give them recognition for their service abroad except in one or two limited regions—in Ghana and elsewhere.

Debate adjourned.

The Seanad adjourned at 10 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, July 26th, 1962.