Menu
-HOME
Baile
-DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí
-DÁIL DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Dála
-SEANAD DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Seanaid
-SEARCH
Cuardach
-ABOUT THIS SITE
Faoin Suíomh Seo
-LINKS
Nascanna
Previous - Lch. Roimhe Seo Up - Suas Next - Ar Aghaidh

Dáil Éireann - Volume 29 - 17 April, 1929

In Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 45—Office of the Minister for Education (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £110,129 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1930, chun Costaisí Oifig an Aire Oideachais maraon le costas Riaracháin, Cigireachta, etc.

That a sum not exceeding [392] £110,129 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Education, including the cost of Administration, Inspection, etc.

Tomás O Deirg: Rinne mé tagairt cheanna don easbaidh leabhar seasta le haghaidh na meán-scoileanna. Ba chóir leabhair seasta a bheith leagtha amach i dtreó nách mbeadh ar na páistí leabhair nua do cheannach o bhliain go bliain. Chó maith leis sin, tá a lán daoine ag a bhfuil eolas aca ar an gceist agus níl siad sásta leis na leabhair staire atá idir lamhaibh na bpáiste sna sgoileanna fá láthair. Ó thárla an sgoilt imeasc na ndaoine a bhí ar thaobh Náisiúntachta, tá seacht mblian ó shoin, tá fhios againn go raibh seans maith ag an namhaid leabhair do scríobhadh cosamhail leis na leabhraí do sgríobh Froude, agus daoine mar é, sa tseanaimsir—leabhair ag cur síos ar na “natives,” agus mar sin de. Má tá athrú ann anois, má tá rialtas againn féin agus má tá brí Náisiúntachta ag na daoine atá os cionn Roinne Oideachais, ba cheart féachaint chuige nach mbeadh aon leabhar i lamhaibh na bpáiste nach mbeimíd sásta leis seacht mblian ó shoin. Má's rud go bhfuilimid ar thaobh Náisiúntachta, agus má tá sé romhainn an teanga náisiúntach do shábháil, is ceart dúinn a fhéicéal go bhfuil an sprid ceart ghá nochtadh sna leabhraí scoile; agus ní amháin sin, ach gur fíor-Eireannaigh na daoine a sgríobheas iad agus go mbeadh baint idir na leabhraí Bearla atá in úsáid agus obair na tíre—go mbeidh ceachtanna ionnta ag cur síos ar déantúisi na h-Eireann agus rudái eile mar sin.

Dubhairt mé anuiridh go mba cheart don Roinn Oideachais a thuille de dhéanamh chun ceol Gaedhalach do chur chun chinn sna scoileanna. Ní doigh liom do dtug an tAire aon fhreagra dom ar an gceist sin. Chonnaic mé le déanaí i bpapéir éigin alt a scríobh sagart ag cur síos ar an gceist. D'fhiafruigh [393] sé an raibh aon fáth go raibh ceol Gallda, no ceol de thír ar bith cile lasmuigh de'n tir seo, ghá theagasg sna scoileanna. Ba cheart níos mó cúraim do thabhairt don cheist, i dtreo agus go mbeadh ceol Gaedhalach in uachtar i ngach scoil san tír, má's féidir é.

Táim ar aon intinn le Teachta Mac Antoin mar gheall ar cheárd-oideachas. Tá cúpla blian thart ó cuireadh amach an tuarasgabhail idtaobh an cheird-Oideachais agus ba cheart toradh éigin a bheith ag teacht as anois. Tá fhios againn nach féidir scéim iomlán de cheárd-Oideachas do chur i bhféidhm i lá no i mblian no b'fhéidir i ndeich mbliana ach is féidir tús do dhéanamh. Sé an tús go mba cheart do dhéanamh ná na múinteóirí do thraenáil i dtreo agus go mbeidh siad ullamh, nuair a thiocfas an t-am, leis an obair do ghlaca idir lamhaibh. Tá a lán múinteóirí Gaedhilge sa tír nach mbíonn ag obair ach ar feadh cúpla uair san oiche agus thiocfadh leo abhair leighinn eile do mhúineadh dá mbeadh faill acu iad féin d'ullamhú. Bheadh seans acu, annsin, postanna d'fháil sna scoileanna leanúnacha nuair a cuirfí ar bun iad.

Rud eile—áiteacha in a bhfuil iascaireacht ar siúl ba cheart rud éigin do dhéanamh chun traenáil speisiálta do thabhairt do mhacaibh na n-iasgaire. Tá a fhios againn— tá súil againn go dtiocfaidh toradh maith as—go bhfuil scéim ceaptha ag an Roinn Iasgaireachta agus, mar gheall ar sin, ba cheart scoileanna leanúnacha do chur ar bun i ngach áit in a bhfuil iascaireacht ar siúl.

Ní bhíonn diosbóireacht cheart againn ar an gceist seo. Isé an fá, do réir mo thuairime, nach bhfuil aon chúntas ceart againn ar an bpolaisí atá leagtha amach i gcóir meán-oideachais. Níl aon chuntas againn ó sna cigirí. Níl fhios againn an bhfuil an Roinn ag cur roimpí dluth-bhaint do dhéanamh idir meán-oideachas agus ceárdoideachas i gcoinn cúpla blian no an bhfuil an Roinn sásta leanúint leis an gceangal atá idir na meán-scoileanna agus na hOllsgoileanna agus dochtúirí agus dlitheadóirí do [394] chur amach ó bhliain go bliain. Gan eolas cruinn, ní feidir cur síos ar an gceist seo—ceist an oideachais—i gceart. Tá ionnsuidhe láidir gha dhéanamh i gcuid de na páipéirí ar an nGaedhilg agus gach rud a bhaineas leis an dteangain. Ba cheart eolas cruinn, beacht a bheith againnne i dtreo gur féidir linn na freagraí cearta do thabhairt. Tá fhios againn, ó chuntaisí na gcigirí, an obair mhaith atá á dhéanamh sna bunscoileanna ach ba chóir é a bheith ar ar gcumas an oideachas atá ins na bun-scoileanna anois do chur i gcomparáid leis an oideachas a bhí ann 10 mbliana ó shoin. Má tá aon phoinntí laige san scéim sin, ba chóir iad do dheisiú. Támuid uilig i bhfhaobhar an pholaisí atá ag an Roinn Oideachais acht níl fhios againn i gceart an chaoi in a bhfuil sé ag oibriú.

Mr. Byrne: I consider this Estimate is perhaps one of the most important that this House will be asked to pass. The importance of education in other countries may be summed up by stating that in America it is considered that knowledge is the basis of happiness, while in Germany they consider that the national prosperity and the stability of a country depend upon its system of education. In my opinion it ought to be the aim and object of every Deputy to see that each year when this Estimate is introduced there has been a progressive advance in the standard of education and in the results achieved by the system of education.

We have listened to what, no doubt, have been very eloquent speeches delivered by members of the Opposition Party in the Irish tongue. I wonder what useful purpose will be served—and I hope in making that observation that I will not be misconstrued or misunderstood—by delivering to the House a speech in a language of which only 5 to 10 per cent. of the audience understand a single word. I wonder what object can be served, what useful purpose, as far as the interests of education are concerned, can be achieved by delivering speeches in [395] a language which practically only 5 per cent. of those in this House understand. I do not wish to discuss this for any sentimental reason. I consider that I have been sent here to look after the interests of the common people, and I suggest that, as far as those interests are concerned, the two main speeches from the Opposition have served very little useful purpose. As far as I can gather, the main criticism from the Opposition Benches has been to advocate the advancement of what they term the Gaelicisation of the State. I am one of those who, rightly or wrongly, believe that in advocating the Gaelicisation of this State we are pushing what I consider is an open door. I consider that the national spirit of the country is sufficiently developed without the aid of a spur from any Deputy.

The point that I would ask the House to consider is: what useful purpose may be served by a further development of this process of Gaelicisation? What useful purpose or advantage will the 30,000 people who emigrate from these shores year after year obtain, when they go to earn their livelihood in a foreign country, by this process of Gaelicisation, and by the development of what our friends on the Opposition Benches term the spirit of nationalism? A further point from the Opposition Benches—and I think this sums up their whole criticism—was to suggest that we ought to make an appeal to the Minister to see that nothing but national games were played in the schools. I hope I will not be considered offensive when I say that, in my opinion, that is only wasting the time of the House. I think there are deeper, graver, and more important issues involved in this Vote than criticisms of that kind.

I suggest that we have now reached another milestone in the history of this country, and that the question we should ask ourselves, as far as education is concerned, is: Has this country progressed and advanced in the proper way, or is it [396] only marking time? Last year, when speaking to this Vote, I aroused considerable indignation here by venturing to suggest that our system of primary education was considerably behind those of other countries. I was told that I did not adduce a scintilla of evidence in support of that statement. A very learned gentleman—Rev. Father Lambert McKenna—was quoted as having stated that nowhere had he found teachers more anxious to do their duty than Irish teachers, and that was cited to prove that my views were erroneous. I should like to say that in any criticism I have to pass I do not wish to depreciate the task of those engaged in such an important, and, as far as this nation is concerned, imperative duty as education. I honestly believe that the teachers want to do the best they possibly can for their pupils, and that the Education Department want to do what is best for the general interests of the country; but I suggest that if certain defects exist in the system of primary education, it is the duty of the House to analyse and examine these defects, and, if possible, to see that they are remedied.

The Rev. Lambert McKenna has been quoted as an authority to show that all is well as far as primary education is concerned. I should like to quote the Reverend T.F. Ryan, S.J., who dealt with educational statistics in a very instructive lecture some time ago. He said that an alarming situation existed at present, and pointed out that several thousands of boys and girls at the age of 14 are being added each year to the numbers of unemployed. In 1927, of those who registered for employment on leaving school, 54 per cent. had not reached the sixth standard and 4.3 per cent. were under the fourth, which, in his words, means that 4.3 per cent. are practically illiterate. He further pointed out that 92 per cent. of those who applied for street traders' licences had not reached the sixth standard, and 36.4 per cent. had not reached the fourth. In my opinion these are the questions that [397] matter. We have now an estimate for £110,000 for primary education. Are the results, as far as the figures I have quoted are concerned, commensurate with the money expended? Will it be contended that a proportion of 4.3 of what may be termed practically illiterates is a reasonable proportion under our primary education system upon which the country spends £110,000? I should like to ask the House what is the future of these unfortunate children? Is there any remedy that can be applied to wipe out this ratio of illiterates?

If one examines the results of the technical school examinations for 1927 the same tale is unfolded. These results show that there were 3,244 successes, and that the failures numbered 1,720, a proportion of 55 per cent. of failures. Surely that is a most disheartening fact. It was also stated in the Technical Report that the weakness in spelling was glaring and general; that in the examinations for building construction the standard of drawing was very low, and that the sketches were extremely poor. Building is a subject that occupies a very considerable portion of the time of this House, and it is of outstanding importance as far as this little nation is concerned. That is an industry in which a considerable amount of employment could be given to children who are thrown on the scrap heap of unemployment year after year. Yet what do we find? That they are absolutely unable to avail themselves as they should of this employment in the great industry of building. I remember many years ago when I was engaged in the building trade across the Channel going into an architect's office in Newcastle-on-Tyne and being handed a set of plans dealing with a £50,000 scheme, and asked to make designs and draw plans to scale from the plans submitted to me. Supposing any of the 30,000 children who leave our shores were placed in the same position, how many would be able to do that, if that particular employment were offered them?

I do not know whether I am stating what is a fact or not, but I [398] should like to ask the Minister what method exists by which children in the primary schools pass from a lower to a higher standard? Is it true that when a child reaches a certain age he is automatically removed into a higher standard whether qualified or not? I feel that I am voicing the discontent of large numbers of parents who are not satisfied with the results of the present educational system. Everybody knows that the struggle for existence is exceedingly keen, and that many parents who keep their children at school make great sacrifices to do so. Yet the result of all this sacrifice is the figures I have quoted! Only yesterday I was speaking to a parent who told me that he had spent £200 on educating his girl in one of the convent schools, and that the girl had returned to him practically unfitted to take up any course. I do not want to exaggerate in any way the defects to which I have referred, but I do say in all sincerity that they are in existence and call for remedy. We are not a sort of mutual admiration society in which we may say that this is the grandest nation in the world and that our children are second to none. What we have to do is to fit those children to fight the battle of life when they are thrown into other countries under different conditions from those existing here. If the system of education here is inferior to the systems across the Channel and on the Continent, it is the duty of the House to devise ways and means to remove that inferiority.

The Minister when dealing, on the Education Estimate last year, with this point to which I have referred again to-day, stated that across the Channel they are not satisfied that education in the primary schools is satisfactory between 11½ and 12 years of age. So much dissatisfied were they, that they were making an attempt to remodel the whole system. We are in a better position, because in our primary system we have subjects such as a particular kind of mathematics and a second language. It would appear from the statement of the Minister that when children in the cross-Channel schools reach the [399] age of 12 years they have already finished the course so far as the curriculum is concerned. What do we find here? That when we keep them here up to 14 years, or two years longer, this large proportion of children are in the lower classes, and a great many of them who are in the higher classes are not really competent so far as their work is concerned. In my opinion, this statement of the Minister, instead of proving that our schools are superior, instead of showing that our primary education system is all that it should be, was one of the highest tributes that he could have paid to the primary system across the Channel.

We are saying that our system is almost a sort of sacrosanct institution. We are dealing now with compulsory school attendance. It was discussed last year and again this year, and we think that we are up-to-date. I wonder do people who have been discussing this question, as far as this nation is concerned, know that a compulsory school attendance system for children from five to fourteen years of age was adopted by Germany as long ago as 1873? These are facts that I think ought to be considered when dealing with an Estimate so important as education. These criticisms which I have levelled at our primary education system are levelled with sincere regret, but if these defects exist, surely it is the duty of Deputies to direct attention to them and to endeavour to have them remedied. When I dealt with this Vote previously, and referred to how far we were behind the times in comparison with other countries, the suggestion was made that I had some concealed motive in delivering these criticisms. It was suggested that these criticisms arose because the Irish language was being taught, and that it was a sort of taking it out of the system because it was furthering what may be termed the interests of nationality. That suggestion really needs no answer as far as I am concerned. I have dealt with facts and figures. I have endeavoured to show certain defects existing in the system [400] of primary education, and I think it is the duty of this House to do what in it lies to remedy these defects and to devise ways and means so that they may not exist in the future.

The Minister for Education, in his opening remarks, said that in the year 1927-8 there was an increase of about £17,000 in teachers' salaries. In convents where capitation grants existed, he said there was an increase in the same year of £80,000. Certain critical remarks have been made lately in this country as far as religious teaching orders are concerned. I think I may briefly refer to the protest of the Teachers' Organisation and the demands for safeguarding the existing schools from religious orders and that the teachers should be put upon the same footing in the schools of religious communities as in the ordinary national schools. I think it is only right to point out that to religious orders the Catholic countries throughout Europe owe practically what education they possess at the moment. There were two bodies in the past who put education upon modern methods and developed it, and made it the efficient instrument that it is to-day. One of those, as far as secondary education is concerned, was the Jesuits, and the other body was the Christian Brothers.

I ask the Committee to try to visualise for one moment the conditions that would prevail in the absence of the great work which the Christian Brothers are performing for this country of ours. I would ask them to realise that the Christian Brothers were really the founders of elementary education not alone in this country, but from one end of Europe to the other. Early in the sixteenth century the Christian Brothers were established. It was they who introduced the rule of silence, replaced commands by signals, established the value of written work, and replaced the infliction of punishment by reprimand. What has all this cost the nation? The huge sum of nothing—not a penny. These are the men whom we are asked to [401] restrain from proceeding with their activities so far as this State is concerned. There is no body of men with such a proud record behind them as far as the teaching profession is concerned as the Christian Brothers.

As long ago as 1685 the Christian Brothers' Schools were the first institutions opened for the training of elementary pupils. The superiority of the system of teaching by the Christian Brothers has been admitted by all educationalists who have ever dealt with this subject. It is admitted universally that to the Christian Brothers we owe the introduction of modern standards.

Mr. Fahy: May I ask the Deputy for some information regarding the activities of the Christian Brothers in 1685? Where were they operating?

Mr. Byrne: In 1684 they were operating in France, and they were recognised by the Pope in 1702. I should be very glad to let Deputy Fahy, who is interested in the question of education, have Munroe on the subject, an American authority from whom no prejudice can be expected.

Mr. Fahy: I thought the Deputy was referring to Ireland. I have read most of these books on education.

Mr. Byrne: I was not referring to Ireland. I said that they sprang into existence in 1684, and I am prepared to stand by that.

An Ceann Comhairle: What about bringing it up to date?

Mr. Byrne: I shall bring it up to date in a moment. As far as the Christian Brothers are concerned, they have put elementary education on its feet; they are the pioneers of modern methods; they introduced the class system and they introduced the grading system which is in existence to-day. Hundreds of years ago they were far ahead of other branches of the teaching profession, and I shall bring the matter up to date by saying they are far ahead of [402] other branches of the teaching profession to-day.

Mr. O'Connell: Are they not in the teaching profession?

Mr. Byrne: Complaint is made that they have put up palatial buildings in order to carry out this magnificent work of charity.

Mr. Everett: No Deputy has complained of that.

Mr. Byrne: I am not suggesting that any Deputy complained, but I am referring to the state of affairs that is in existence, and I think it is the duty of the Dáil to take notice of it. I do not think I need say any more as far as the Christian Brothers are concerned.

I shall wind up by another brief reference to them. Instead of being taught by cobblers and disabled soldiers and other heterogeneous teachers, we have in them a body of teachers that will rank favourably with any other body in the world to-day. I gather that this Vote, as far as the Christian Brothers are concerned, contains an extra sum of £17,000, but as far as the convent schools were concerned, that in 1927 and 1928 there was an increase of £80,000. I do not know whether I am right in these figures; but all I have to say is, that if the figures as I have given them represent the value the Christian Brothers have given to the country, the money would be repaid if double the amount was spent every year. As far as the teachers in the convent schools are concerned, a great deal might be done by inquiry into their capacity and efficiency before the question of giving them pensions as advocated by the Teachers' Organisation should be considered by the House. I speak with some experience of the products of convent schools, and I hope I speak with respect——

Mr. T.J. O'Connell: Would the Deputy allow me to ask him a question? When has the Teachers' Organisation ever advocated pensions for members of religious orders? [403] Does the Deputy really know what he is talking about?

Mr. Byrne: I think I have some slight knowledge of it.

Mr. O'Connell: Not much, I am afraid.

Mr. Byrne: I have here in my hand a long letter signed by a member of the Teachers' Organisation. The letter runs into a column in length. I am sorry that the name of the writer is cut off, but I see at the bottom of the letter that he is a B.A. of the National University. The letter is here if any Deputy wants to see it. The Deputy who represents the teachers will have every opportunity of dealing with these few points which I have thought it worth while to make.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy does not represent the teachers. He represents his constituency, which is a wholly different thing.

Mr. Byrne: Well, I believe I am right in saying that he is interested in the teaching profession.

An Ceann Comhairle: The point that I want to make clear is this— it has arisen here before—that the Deputy speaks here for himself and his constituents; not for other bodies.

Mr. Byrne: I should have said that Deputy O'Connell, who has considerable knowledge of the subject of education, will have an opportunity of replying to the criticisms which I have thought it worth while to make as regards the primary system of education in this country. I suggest that what we want in this country, whether it be in the convent schools, the national schools or the Christian Brothers' Schools, is efficiency, and for the money spent results. If all of us co-operated in no party spirit —I assure the House that I am speaking in no party spirit even though I speak from the Government Benches—and did our duty on this great issue of education, we would be doing a good day's work for the country and for the young children [404] who, later on, will have to earn their living in the very difficult times that lie ahead.

Padraic O hÓgain: Táim ar aon intinn leis an dTeachta atá tréis labhairt agus ar an adhbhar san labharfad as Gaedhilg ar fad. Ba mhaith liom-sa rud beag, fíor rud bheag, a rádh ar an meastachán so. Baineann pé rud atá le rádh agam-sa le cúrsaí na Gaedhilge sna bun scoileanna sa nGalltacht agus ba mhaith liom freagra d'fháil ar chúpla ceisteanna.

Mar abhar léighinn sna bun scoileanna sa nGalltacht, tá an Ghaedhilg go maith—níos fearr na Greigis na Laidean. Tá postanna le fáil ag cuid de na macaibh léighinn ach don bhfurmhór acu ce'n mhaith i? Níl aon phost le fáil ag an bhfurmór acu.

Táim ag cuimhneamh ar an rud so le fada. An bhfuil níos mó daoine in ánn Gaedhilig do labhairt anois—nílim ag tagairt do na daoine ag a bhfuil “Dia dhuit! agus Bail o Dhia ort!” acu—sa nGalltacht na mar bhí seacht no ocht mblian ó shoin? An mbéidh níos mó Gaedhilgeóirí ann—cainnteóirí Gaedhilge—i gcionn naoi no deich de bhliaintaibh de bharr na gcúrsaí Gaedhilge atá ar siúl fá lathair ná mar tá ann anois? Is dó liom go bhfuil an iomarca muinghne ar fad ghá chur i múineadh na scoileanna. Do chuireas ceist mar gheall ar seo ar a lán múinteóirí atá ábalta Gaedhilig do mhúineadh go maith agus nach bhfuil in aghaidh na Gaedhilge D'fhiafruigheas díobh an féidir cainnteóirí Gaedhilge do dhéanamh de na páistí tar éis na seacht mbliana a caithtear ar scoil. Dubhairt an furmhór acu nach bhféadfaí, gan congnamh ó na máithreacha agus na h-aithreacha sa mbaile. Sé mo thuairim féin nach bhfuil aon mhúineadh ann a bhfuil tairbhe ann maidir leis an nGaedhilg a choimeád beo ach an mhúineadh a déantar sa mbaile. Bhal, níl na máithreacha no na h-aithreacha i nánn—cuid maith acu, ar dhoigh ar bith—congnamh do thabhairt do na páistí sa nGalltacht. Tá siad mar a bhí na máithreacha agus na h-aithreacha idtaobh an Bhéarla sa nGaeltacht fiche blian [405] ó shoin. Níor thuigeadar na páistí agus iad ag labhairt as Bhéarla. Tá sé mar a geeudhna sa nGalltacht fá lathair i dtaobh na Gaedhilge. Ceapann na páistí gur abhar léighinn scoile atá i nGaedhilig sna bun-scoileanna. Tá a n-aithreacha agus a maithreacha ar an dtuairim cheudhna. Ceapann siad go bhfuil an Ghaedhilig go maith mar abhar léighinn scoile ach ní h-é sin an rud ar a bhfuilimid-ne ag smaoineamh. Isé atá rómhann an Ghaedhilig a bheith againn mar gnáth-theangain na tíre. Ceist eile ar fad é sin.

Is dóigh liom go mb' fhearr dhuinn agus don Ghaedhilg an t-airgead atá ghá chaitheamh againn sa nGalltacht do chaitheamh sa nGaeltacht—áit in a bhfuil an teanga beó mar ghnáththeanga fós. B'fhearr dúinn an rud is féidir linn do dhéanamh sa nGaeltacht, mar is eagal liom gur obair in aisge í a bheith ag teagase Gaedhilge sna bun-scoileanna sa nGalltacht. Ba mhaith liom freagra d'fháil ó'n Aire an ar mhaithe na tíre, no ar mhaithe na teangan na ar mhaithe na bpáistí-fhéin an méid seo d'airgead agus an méid seo d'am atá ghá chaitheamh ar mhúineadh na Gaedhilge sna bun scoileanna sa nGalltacht.

Professor Tierney: In the few observations that I have to make on this Vote, I wish to refer to the teaching of Irish. The question has been so constantly discussed here that one feels one is indulging perhaps in too much repetition in referring to it again. On the last occasion that the Education Vote was before the House, I urged on the Minister the desirability of making inquiries as to whether it would be possible to establish a series of official text-books for the primary schools, and, to some extent, for secondary schools especially in the Irish language. My remarks on that occasion were subjected to a good deal of criticism. The argument was used against what I said that because the use of official text-books was abused in this country by the old English Board of Education and had to a certain extent a bad effect under that Board, that, therefore, [406] the establishment of a series of official text-books by the present Government would also be likely to have a bad effect. I do not agree at all with that argument. On the contrary, I think that the present chaotic conditions that prevail in primary schools with regard to text-books is doing definite injury. There is no particular standard whatever being applied. One finds the greatest possible difference between one school and another. The question as to what text-books are used in a school is very largely decided by chance; as to what publishers' agent happens to call on the teachers from time to time. The matter is still more urgent in the case of the teaching of Irish, because the supply of text-books suitable for use in primary schools in Irish is very small. In addition to the supply being small, I think it is also true to say that a good many of the text-books which are and have been in use, and that have been even I might say—as far as I am aware—officially imposed by the Education Authorities are not fit to be used as text-books at all.

I say that there is a great need for setting up a definite, co-ordinated and carefully-planned series of text-books for the teaching of the Irish language itself, as well as for the teaching of such subjects as are capable of being successfully taught at the moment in that language, such, for example, as the history of Ireland, the geography of Ireland, and other subjects.

With regard to the secondary schools, the position is still worse, because the number of text-books that are really available for any kind of successful teaching in the Irish language in secondary schools is absurdly small. For instance, the number of really useful text-books that are in existence dealing, say, with the history of Irish literature, and that are suitable for use in secondary schools, is practically negligible. In regard to the matter of folklore, a great deal of material was collected and printed in previous years, but I think it is true to say that a large amount of that material is now out of print and not [407] available. The Gaelic League published an enormous amount of useful books dealing with folklore, and a number also dealing with poetry and general literature. I think it would be true to say that the majority of these books are unprocurable, and cannot be used for the purposes of the secondary schools. The establishment then of some kind of series of official text-books is, I think, a very urgent matter, especially in regard to Irish, but to a very large extent in regard to the teaching of English as well.

The notion that because a previous Government made a certain use of that kind of text book the present Government, or any future Government of the country, is likely to make the same use of them is, I think, an altogether erroneous notion. I believe that nothing but good is likely to follow from the adoption of a carefully planned and well thought out scheme for the setting up of a series of official text books. Deputy Pádraig O hOgáin, from what I heard of his speech, was dealing with the teaching generally in the schools outside the Gaeltacht. He is apparently adopting a very extreme point of view in that matter. He seemed to be saying that the money that is being spent in the Galltacht in the teaching of Irish is being completely wasted, and that it would be better for the Government to spend the money which they are spending in the Galltacht on the schools in the Gaeltacht. That is a point of view which. I think, it is worth our while discussing here, for it is a point of view I have heard often expressed, and by nobody so strongly as by people familiar with the Gaeltacht, and who realise the great danger in which the language still stands in the Gaeltacht. I do not think enough time has been given to the examination of that point of view and the examination of the whole question as to how far the present method of teaching Irish in primary schools throughout the Galltacht has been successful, and as to how far the energy that could be [408] spent in the teaching of Irish in the Gaeltacht is being wasted in the Galltacht.

Personally, in so far as I have any experience—and I have some I think —it is very far from true to say that the money that is being spent in the Galltacht is being wasted. I have visited schools in the Galltacht where the use of the Irish language has been dead for two generations, and where the teacher cannot be said to be at all supremely well qualified to teach Irish, and I have certainly been very greatly impressed by the work done in these schools. I have found that an active teacher who is interested in his work and who has a moderate knowledge of the Irish language is able to achieve the most surprising results in the teaching of it, even in schools where it is no longer spoken by the older people. I have found also—it is a matter of personal experience and I have gone into it carefully—that so far from the teaching of English suffering in such schools, it has, if anything, got to as high a level as was attained 15 or 20 years ago when Irish was not taught at all. That is my personal experience and opinion, and I think that while, of course, it is altogether too optimistic to expect that we can succeed at one blow in restoring Irish as the spoken language of a district by means of the work I have referred to in primary schools, I still believe the work that is being done is extremely valuable as a kind of groundwork for the eventual restoration of Irish and its use in the homes, and in the daily lives of the people.

However, there are different points of view in the matter. I think it is a matter worth discussing and never losing sight of. It may happen quite frequently in a particular school that a teacher who is not sufficiently qualified may be doing more harm than good by trying to do work which he is unable to do. In that matter I think everything depends on the knowledge, energy and enthusiasm of the teacher. If you have not got knowledge, energy and enthusiasm, it is quite conceivable a [409] state of affairs might arise like that which Deputy O hOgáin referred to. However, I am very far from saying we have not got that knowledge, and I am still further from believing we have not got both energy and enthusiasm on the part of the primary teachers to do the work.

There are one or two other little points that I would like to refer to. Deputy Fahy spoke of the fact that at the present moment children in Dublin attending secondary schools seem to be forced to do an altogether disproportionate amount of home work. I was interested in that remark of Deputy Fahy, because it happens to be an experience of my own. I am acquainted with a child attending a secondary school whose life seems to be a burden because of the extremely heavy amount of home work which she is compelled to do. It is an amount of home work altogether out of proportion to the amount of work actually done in the school. Deputy Fahy suggested one means of dealing with that, a rather drastic means. He suggested that the number of school days might be increased, or that the amount of holidays might be cut down and the home work at the same time cut down. I do not know that any possible remedy is capable of being found at the moment. I think it is largely a matter of accommodation, and it is possible that through excessive zeal the teachers, without knowing it, would be inflicting an injustice on pupils. For that reason it is worth airing the matter in the Dáil, at any rate.

There are a great many subjects comprised in these Estimates that one could discuss at great length, matters such as the teaching of Latin and Mathematics in secondary schools and the question of the relation between the Matriculation and the Leaving Certificate. All these questions might be discussed at very great length, but, like the question of home work, perhaps the best course is only to refer to them in order that some attention may be devoted to them.

Mr. Mullins: Deputy J.J. Byrne [410] does not approve of the Gaelicisation policy of the Government, and that produces a very interesting suggestion from Deputy Patrick Hogan, with which, like Deputy Tierney, I find myself unable to agree. Like Deputy Tierney, I agree that it is worth examination and discussion. There is one thing that Deputy Hogan said with which I am in entire agreement. He said that too much confidence was placed on school teaching to save the Irish language. He said, further, that the teaching of the language by itself in the schools would not restore it as a spoken language in Ireland. There is no doubt in my mind that we are placing too much confidence in the schools to save the language. We are taking it for granted that the Irish teaching which the children in the English-speaking districts are getting will, in the course of time, produce an Irish-speaking people. I do not think that is going to happen, because a gap is left after children leave the school until the period when they reach more mature age and take up work. There is no form of continuation school, no night school or folk school by which they could improve and consolidate the knowledge they got in the primary schools. That is a gap which, I am convinced, will, in most cases, unless they have tremendous interest in the language, result in the absolute disappearance of the grammatical or book knowledge which they may have gained in the schools. Deputy Byrne wanted to know what useful purpose the Gaelicisation policy of the Government was going to achieve. I do not think anybody with any sense would question that policy on the same lines as Deputy Byrne questions it. Suffice it to say in answer to Deputy Byrne that nationality is the basis of education, and if the Gaelic language, which is subject to so many attacks in this country within recent months, is not taught in the schools, if it is allowed to die, then there is no doubt the hope which Deputy Byrne expresses, that the children would be quite satisfied, will be achieved, but at what a loss?

[411] In regard to the speech of the Minister when introducing the Estimate, I was very pleased to hear, in spite of criticisms to the contrary, that the School Attendance Act has been successful. The figures the Minister gave were interesting and illuminating. I had doubts that the Act was going to prove beneficial to the children, but I am convinced now, having seen it operating in the country, that it is one of the best pieces of legislation passed by this Dáil since its inception. I was glad to hear the figures relating to the numbers of students from the Gaeltacht attending preparatory colleges. That is a good thing. Could the Minister give us any indication when the transfer will take place of Colaiste na Mumhan at Mallow to the Gaelic-speaking districts? Mallow is in the heart of the Gaeltacht, and two places in Cork have been recommended—Coolea and Ballyvourney. I would like to know when the Minister intends to transfer that college to one of the Irish-speaking areas I have mentioned.

In looking through the Estimates I was sorry to note a steady decrease in the amount asked for technical education. Undoubtedly, it is a good thing that the Estimate for primary and secondary education shows a steady increase, but the Estimate for technical education in 1924-25 was £201,585 and that has dropped to £184,739. Like other Deputies, I am curious about the Government's policy with regard to the Report of the Commission on Technical Education. I hope some information will be given us when the debate is concluding as to the Government's proposals in the matter. I regret also to notice the decrease in the Estimate for elementary schools in the City. There is a decrease of something like £6,500 for night schools. I think when the Minister spoke of economies it was very bad economy to commence on some of the items in this Estimate. One item is that of £6,500 which I have just mentioned.

I was sorry to note a decrease [412] which means the practical elimination of the Irish summer courses for teachers. It was stated that out of 13,300 teachers, there are still nearly 6,000 who do not possess a bi-lingual or Ard-teastas certificate for the teaching of the Irish language. It would be well if the Minister stated what he proposes to do to bridge that gap and enable the 6,000 to acquire the bi-lingual certificate within a reasonable time.

Looking through the White Paper with regard to the Gaeltacht Commission Report, I find the Government's attitude set out in paragraph 51:—

That special local courses, which will not interfere with the ordinary working of the schools, be organised at suitable times for the purpose of helping teachers in the Gaeltacht at present unable to impart the whole course of primary education in Irish, to become so qualified.

The Government set out that they do not find this possible but that the following alternative arrangement is under consideration:

The appointment of special organisers who would travel from district to district, organising in the schools instruction through the medium of Irish, and, where necessary, assisting teachers who already have a knowledge of the language to improve their proficiency to the required standard.

That might provide an alternative for the abolition of the summer courses, but I do not think that it would work out successfully. There is another way out which the Minister might take into consideration. There is a lack of co-operation existing between the Department of Education and the local County Committees of Technical Instruction. The services of the Irish teachers employed by the County Committees are availed of at night. Classes are mostly held at night in country districts. During the day time the teachers are free and I do not see why some arrangement should not be arrived at so that the teachers under the County Committees could attend [413] schools in districts where students are not otherwise sufficiently equipped or facilitated to learn the language. Closer co-operation between the County Committees and the Department would result in some alternative for the abolition of the summer courses. That abolition is going to do harm.

Another point mentioned here was the question of school libraries. Some arrangements should be made by the Department of Education by which a library scheme would be put into operation and under which the primary schools could avail of the libraries worked by the County Council. In the Cork County Council we have, under the administration of the County Council, a very successful county library scheme, and in something like 210 schools that has been taken advantage of by the teachers. Some teachers, to whom I have been talking, have assured me that it filled a long felt want. I am sure the experience of those teachers would be the experience of every school in the country were this scheme adopted.

One other question which I do not think has been referred to is with reference to the question of the provision of school buildings. I suggest that some better arrangements should be made with regard to the erection, maintenance and enlargement of school buildings than the present arrangement. I want some information from the Minister when he is replying with regard to the schools that I have been pressing him about for a long time—Adrigole school, which is in the Gaeltacht, and Belgooly school, which is in the Galltacht. The reason I mention the Adrigole school is that in the Government White Paper in connection with the Gaeltacht Report we have it stated that provision for the erection of school buildings, not alone for the Gaeltacht but for the English-speaking areas as well, was in course of preparation. I hope we will get some information on that point before the debate closes.

I think that the amount of money allocated for the cleaning and heating of schools is too small. I should [414] think that should be an all State charge and the responsibility not divided between the local people and the State. Last year, in connection with this Estimate, I referred to the advisability of an extension of the use of the cinema, or at least lantern slides in the schools. Nothing has been done on that matter since, and nothing has been suggested by the Minister in this regard. I suggest that he should give consideration to that question. Some of the districts in my constituency of West Cork. Castletownbere in particular, would be much benefited by such a scheme. We suggest that a travelling teacher could be sent round to visit these schools and give lectures on history and geography which would be illustrated by these pictures or lantern slides. That would be the means of inducing the children to attend school. It would give them an added interest in school life, and would prove a great attraction to them in continuing their studies. Another point on which no information was given by the Minister, when introducing the Estimate, was the question of the teaching of traditional Irish singing in the schools. Some time ago that question was raised in the Dáil. We would like to have from the Minister some definite statement as to the treatment of traditional Irish singing in the primary schools. I hope the Minister will give us some information on that, when he comes to reply, because that is a subject that has been sadly neglected.

Reference has been made to the question of the school books. I agree that the prices of school books are absolutely out of all proportion to the capacity of many parents in the country to pay. The prices of these school books are unreasonable. There is no doubt whatever that were the Government to set up some particular board or authority under the Department of Education to whom would be given the job of publishing suitable school texts, that those texts could be issued to the children at a very reasonable cost. In fact, they could be issued at cost price to children in the Gaeltacht as was suggested in the Gaeltacht [415] Commission Report. One example of the cost of these books is given when I say that five years ago the cost of a one hundred and twenty page copy book was 2d; to-day the cost of a forty-eight page copy book is one penny. Any parent with say, six or seven school-going children who will at the start of the year have to equip the children with copy books as well as the readers that will be required for the children, will find that the small wages paid at present, especially to the agricultural labourers in the country, means to him that he is faced with an almost impossible task. No parent likes to send his children to school and to know that they are worse equipped than the children of other parents. The Minister should give more attention to that question than has been given up to the present.

The suggestion made by Deputy Tierney last year and also in the course of this debate that suitable text books should be taken in hands and published by the State at a reasonable price is a suggestion that is worthy of more consideration than appears to have been given to it by the Government up to the present. Complaints have been made that there are many unsuitable books in use in the schools, particularly history books. I agree. I have been reading through some of them in the last few days. There is very little in them but a hard metallic statement of facts. They are, unfortunately, written in such a style that no child would acquire an interest in the subject which they teach. History written in such a style is not made sufficiently interesting to the children. In these books on history there is very little given as to the conditions or the social life of the people, or the customs of the people in ancient Ireland. Very little attention has been devoted in these books to make the history attractive to the children in the schools. Had these histories been written, for instance, on the principle of A. M. Sullivan's “Story of Ireland,” the subject would be made much more [416] attractive to the pupils. At present the history taught in the schools seems to be only a collection of the dates at which certain incidents occurred, and very little else.

Another thing in connection with this is that sufficient attention is not devoted, I maintain, to the teaching of local history. When the teaching of local history is made more attractive to the children a better type of citizens will be built up in this country, people with a good independent, broadminded outlook. The children of to-day would thus, in the next generation, be people of a broadminded, independent outlook. I believe that if the teaching of local history were attended to from this angle the children would get a better understanding of their country, and they would better realise their responsibilities and their duties to the country. Sufficient attention has not been devoted in the way of teaching it. Deputy Clery, in the course of his speech, made a plea for closer co-operation between the County Committees of Technical Instruction and the Department of Education. I should like to support that. I believe that the services of the agricultural and horticultural instructors should be utilised in the same way as I have suggested that the services of the Gaelic teachers should be utilised for the furtherance of the studies of the children in the Irish language. At present agriculture seems to be despised by many people in this country. The tilling of the soil does not attract the possibilities that it should. I believe that if more attention were given in school hours, or even after school hours, to demonstration plots, more interest could be aroused in the minds of the children in country districts in agricultural pursuits.

Under Vote 49, for Science and Art. I presume we can deal with this matter. I find under that that there is £2,400 allotted for publications in Irish, that is, grants-in-aid towards the preparation and publication of translations of original works of general literature. We would like the Minister to give some attention to that point, and if he would say [417] how far the scheme has progressed. For instance, how many translations from foreign authors have already appeared, and what original works have been sanctioned, and the grant made in each case towards the publication.

In reference to (B) (1)—“Publications and Plays in Irish (Grant-in-Aid)” and “An Comhar Dramíochta”—I may mention that last year I had occasion to criticise this sub-head. I should like to know from the Minister whether this grant-in-aid is applicable to any other society than that which is recognised in Dublin, and whether, in the case of a dramatic society operating with his sanction in the country, such, for instance, as that in Cork, any financial assistance is given for the production of Irish drama. If that grant is to secure the best possible results, I think that some encouragement ought to be given to country dramatic societies which, like the Dublin Society, are endeavouring to propagate Gaelic literature. In regard to the grant-in-aid of £500 given for “Preparation of Records of Irish Speech,” I would like to know how much has been done in that direction, how many records have been prepared, and whether such records are obtainable by the public, and, if so, where they are to be got.

In connection with educational facilities for Gaelic-speaking districts. I may mention that some time ago, when we had a debate on the Gaeltacht, we secured a good deal of valuable information, but I find that we missed some information on points which come under this Vote, and I am sure that the Minister will endeavour to answer them before he concludes. It is stated in paragraph 4 in the White Paper dealing with educational facilities in the Gaeltacht: “That systematic steps be taken to ascertain the number of teachers in the Irish-speaking districts who are not likely to acquire this essential qualification within reasonable time.” The comment on that is: “This information is now in [418] the hands of the Government.” The Minister should let us know, if possible, what is the relative proportion of teachers who have got the bilingual certificate and the Ard-Teástas and those who have not yet qualified or who would not be able to qualify in this respect within reasonable time.

Paragraph 5 states “That all teachers who are not likely to qualify in a reasonable time to impart the whole course of primary education through the medium of Irish be removed from schools in the Irish-speaking districts, within a period which, as far as possible, shall not exceed three years; and from schools in the higher percentage areas of the partly Irish-speaking districts within a period which, as far as possible, shall not exceed five years.” The Government comment on that recommendation was that as it stood it would present great practical difficulties. It goes on to state “Before the problem is dealt with it would be desirable that a small committee of managers and representatives of the Department of Education should investigate the question in all its bearings. If such a committee could present an agreed report there would be much less danger of friction in the carrying out of whatever changes might be considered necessary and feasible, as the result of the committee's investigation to meet the needs of the Gaeltacht. The Government hopes to be able to set up such a committee.”

I should like to know from the Minister whether such committee was set up and, if so, whether its report has been presented and when it will be available to Deputies. In connection with Paragraph 10 (Recommendation 55) it is stated: “That in schools in the Gaeltacht in which Irish is the sole medium of instruction, and the school-work is carried out efficiently, teachers who are reported as ‘highly efficient’ be granted a ten per cent. bonus on their salary and teachers reported as ‘efficient’ a five per cent. bonus.” The comment of the White Paper on that is “The Government accept the principle of special recognition of efficient [419] teaching through the medium of Irish. A suitable scheme is being prepared.” Being very curious and having addressed many questions to the Minister I do not think that it is any harm to ask whether that scheme has yet seen the light and, if not, when he expects that it will do so. I have no great quarrel with the administration of the Department of Education and this is one of the Votes which I do not like to see decreasing. I should, in fact, like to see it increase because any money spent on education is well spent. The Department of Education is about the one Department which does not leave itself open for much adverse criticism on administrative details. I have no great quarrel with that Department and I trust when the Minister winds up the Debate that he will give the information asked for on the various points which have been raised, particularly those in reference to the Gaeltacht which I have drawn to his attention.

Mr. MacEntee: I did not intend to intervene in this debate, and I hesitated to do so now because I did not want to run across the trend of the discussion so far, for what I have to say is more in the nature of a personal explanation than really a contribution to the matter. The Minister, in the course of his speech introducing the Vote, challenged certain figures of mine, particularly the statement that though the Estimates were designed to give the impression that expenditure on educational services for the current year would represent an increase of £257,230 upon the actual expenditure upon the same services for 1926-7, at the same time, of this apparent increase, £194,000 was being absorbed by the office of the Minister. The Minister is anxious to know where I got my figures. I think I made it clear in my speech on the Vote on Account that the figures which I gave of the respective expenditures on the several groups of services were all-in or inclusive figures giving the total costs for the groups. They thus included [420] not only the nominal costs, as represented by the sum of the Votes specially ascribed for the services in each group, but also the expenditure in respect of each such service which appears on other Estimates and is met on other Votes.

In calculating the total cost of educational services I would like to point out that I had to rely on an uncorrected proof copy of the Estimates which was furnished to the Party on these benches a couple of days before the Vote on Account was taken. According to the figures given in that copy, the total expenditure in connection with the Office of the Minister was expected to be £381,297, which figure I naturally took for the purpose of comparison, and not the figure of £166,294 which appears in the Estimates in Vote 45 proper. I do not think that I was wrong in taking the figure of £381,297. I think that when we are considering the public services by groups in that fashion we ought to take into account the total cost of administering the services, and, undoubtedly, in addition to the £166,294 given in this copy as the Vote to be asked for in respect of the Office of the Minister, we have also to take into account the amount which is asked for under other Votes in respect of the Department. We cannot, for instance, leave out of account the amount asked for under Vote 17 for Rates, or the amount under Vote 11 for Office Accommodation, or the amount under Vote 22 for Printing.

Professor O'Sullivan: Does the Deputy suggest that Vote 11 is legitimately described as expenses on the bureaucratic side of the Office? I do not want to interrupt the Deputy, but I wish to get the matter clear. I quite see how the Deputy was misled. I suggest to him that it is not fair to include in the bureaucratic administration expenses the building of schools and colleges on which practically the whole £190,000 was spent.

Mr. MacEntee: I admit that to the extent of £63,000 possibly——

[421] Professor O'Sullivan: £190,000.

Mr. MacEntee: To the extent of £63,000 I may have erred. However, I do admit, and I was proceeding to say, that when considering the cost and the actual expenditure for 1926-27, I do not think I took into account the amount expended in that year on new works and buildings.

Professor O'Sullivan: It is on that Vote, as I have pointed out, that the Deputy will find that the total of £190,000 is, except for a couple of thousand pounds, practically spent on school buildings and college buildings.

Mr. MacEntee: The only thing I have to guide me is the——

Professor O'Sullivan: There is a reference to Vote 11, and if the Deputy will look at Vote 11 he will find that it is there.

Mr. MacEntee: I was going on to deal with that, because I did look at Vote 11. I find, out of a total sum of £136,700 which was asked for in the year 1926-27 in respect of new buildings and the adaptation of existing buildings, £63,938 was spent.

Professor O'Sullivan: There is the other question of bureaucracy. There may have been increases in that matter, but not in bureaucracy. I refuse to admit that the building of schools is portion of the bureaucratic expenses. That is the whole point at issue. The amount does not matter. It is not a bureaucratic expense.

Mr. MacEntee: Neither is it an actual increase. I think, if you will permit me to develop the matter a little further, I will succeed in showing that if there were not castles in Spain there may have been schools in Spain. The figure of £194,000 which I debited to the Office of the Minister for the year 1926-27 is based on the Appropriation Accounts. A sum of £179,461 was expended on Vote 45 for the Office of the Minister for Education. Adjusting that figure, as it should be adjusted, to take into account [422] the expenditure on fuel, light, water, rates, office accommodation, stationery and printing, superannuation and Post Office, we get £194,000. As I have already said, owing to the fact that these figures have involved a considerable amount of abstracting from estimates of something like 305 pages, and owing to the great haste at which they had to be compiled, I did omit to take into account the amount expended in 1926-27 under Vote 11 for new works. I now find that the expenditure for the Department of Education during that year was £63,000 odd on new works. That amount has to be added to the £194,000 from the Office of the Minister for Education, making a total expenditure during the twelve months——

Professor O'Sullivan: On the Office of the Minister?

Mr. MacEntee: In connection with the Department, the total expenditure in connection with the service. I am taking the figures as they appear in the Estimate.

Professor O'Sullivan: Not this Vote.

Mr. MacEntee: The total expenditure in connection with the service. If you take Vote 45 you will find that the gross estimate over and above the other amounts to be expended——

Professor O'Sullivan: That includes primary, secondary and technical education.

Mr. MacEntee: Exactly. There is office accommodation, fuel and light ——

Professor O'Sullivan: No.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Would the Minister allow the Deputy to continue his speech?

Professor O'Sullivan: Certainly.

Mr. MacEntee: That increases the total cost of the services in the educational group for 1926-27 to £4,658,238. This figure of £4,658,238 is now increased to £4,851,530, which, according to the present Estimate, is [423] apparently to be devoted either directly per the Votes that are specially ascribed to the educational services or indirectly through other Votes, such as fuel, light, public works and buildings, Post Office, etc., for the service of education for the year 1929-30. In my speech on the Vote on Account, I gave the Minister for Education and the Government credit for proposing to increase by £257,230 the total expenditure on education during the current year. This figure was based upon the sum of £381,297, which was given in the uncorrected proof of the Estimates, in connection with the Office of the Minister for the current year, but on examining the Estimates actually published I find that the total expenditure on the Office of the Minister for Education is estimated now not to exceed £380,697. After making the necessary adjustment for the difference between the figures as given in the proof copy, and as given ultimately in the Estimates actually published and for the expenditure on new works in 1926-27, I now find that I was more generous to the Government and the Minister than they deserved, and that the actual apparent increase over and above the amount actually expended in 1926-27 will not be £257,000 odd, but only £192,692. The Office of the Minister is to be responsible, directly or indirectly, for £122,759 of this apparent increase. The Minister, if I can foresee or gauge the tenor of his speech from his interruptions, will endeavour to make capital out of these figures——

Professor O'Sullivan: No.

Mr. MacEntee:—and to say that a large part of the £122,000 is accounted for by a proposed increased expenditure on new works, grants for buildings, and rearrangements and adaptations of existing buildings for educational purposes. In respect of that I would like to point out to the Minister that his criticism of the figures has done me one good service because I have gone back to them again and in examining the total cost of the Minister's Department, [424] I find that the Estimate for the proposed new works under that Department is, in some part at any rate, illusory and misleading. For instance, as I have already said, I find from the Appropriation Accounts for 1926-1927 that the sum actually voted for grants for buildings of various sorts for educational purposes during that year amounted to £136,700, whereas the amount actually expended in that year upon such buildings was only £63,938, or less than half of the total voted. In the year 1927-1928, possibly by some miscalculation, the amount voted was only £113,950, whereas the amount expended was £125,940. In 1928-1929, however, the previous year's miscalculation seems to have been heroically remedied because, although there was voted for new buildings on account of the Education Department a sum of £175,000, according to the Estimates for 1929-1930, the estimated total expenditure which has accrued during the year which has just elapsed upon these new works is only £69,600. Now, is it a mere coincidence that that £69,600 is just a little in excess of the £63,000 odd which was the actual expenditure during 1926-1927?

Arising out of that, is it the practice of this Department, in order to convey the impression to the public that the Government is spending each year an increasing amount on education, to over-estimate the amount which they anticipate will be spent in one year upon new works and buildings? Because if you take the two years I have mentioned, the figures given for 1926-1927, and the figures which appear in the Estimates as the total estimated expenditure which has accrued during the year 1928-1929, one can see that it is quite customary for the Department to over-estimate in that way, and if we take into consideration the fact that out of the £175,000 which was voted last year only £69,000 odd was expended, and make an adjustment on the Estimate for this year of this amount of £190,704 which appears in Vote 11, by deducting from it a [425] sum of not less than £100,000, we will find that, instead of there being any substantial increase in the Estimates in the educational group, the amount which the Minister proposes to expend this year practically remains the same as it was in the year 1926-1927.

That was the whole tenor, practically, of my criticism of the Minister's Estimate. I do admit that I was wrong in saying that the increase in the Estimate had practically been swallowed up by bureaucracy. Obviously, from the figures which I have quoted I cannot substantiate that, and accordingly I withdraw it. But my main purpose, in my speech on the Vote on Account, was to show that the Government, while pretending to secure economies in certain services by cutting down Estimates which, for some purpose of the Government had previously been inflated, was at the same time pretending to increase the amount of public money which was to be devoted to educational services. I think that on the figures which I have given, and the fact that we are to assume that the expenditure during the coming year in respect of new works and buildings will bear the same relation to the Estimate for the current year as the actual expenditure bore to the Estimate of last year, I am entitled to assume that the actual expenditure on education in the year 1929-1930, instead of being increased by something like £257,000 on an Estimate of £4,800,000, will remain practically what it was in the year 1926-1927, and that was the gravamen of my criticism of the Minister's Department.

Professor O'Sullivan: I must say that the gravamen of the Deputy's criticism of the Department was that there was an increase of £190,000 in bureaucracy, and he has not shown that in bureaucracy there has been any such increase. I will read what the Deputy said.

Mr. MacEntee: I will read it myself.

[426] Professor O'Sullivan: He withdraws that, and I am satisfied.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell: The discussion on this Estimate ranges over such a very wide field and raises such questions of general policy and of particular interest that it is difficult to make a coherent statement, in anything like a reasonable space of time, that will deal adequately with the whole subject. Before I go into a few matters of general interest I would like to refer briefly to the speech we heard this afternoon from Deputy Byrne. When listening to the Deputy I was reminded of one of the main problems that I used to be up against in my old school-mastering days, one of the problems that in fact every practical teacher is up against from time to time. He will always find in his class a few boys to whom he will explain things and make them perfectly clear, as he thinks; he will go away with the impression that such boys have learned and understand what has been taught to them, but when the subject comes up again in a few weeks' time he will find that the same invincible ignorance is just as present as ever it was. And so we find with Deputy Byrne. Last year he raised some of the points that he raised to-day. These matters were explained to him; the Minister went to very great trouble to explain it, and other Deputies did their best, too. But we have Deputy Byrne bobbing up again this year with exactly the same kind of complaint, with exactly the same want of evidence with regard to the allegations which he throws around, and without, indeed, as far as I can see, very much thought or very much consideration for the statements he makes. I really do not know whether I am to take him as really making these charges about the standard of primary education, because towards the end of a speech, when he wanted to establish another case, he spoke about the efficient instrument which primary education was at the moment.

Now, what is the value of such evidence as Deputy Byrne brought [427] forward? He quoted certain figures with regard to a very limited number of children in the city of Dublin during the year 1927. They had no relation whatsoever to the total number of children at school, no relation whatsoever to the number of children in other countries with which he ventured to compare the standard here. He has forgotten, apparently, although he was reminded of it last year, that he was dealing with a period when the School Attendance Act was only about six months in operation. Other Deputies and the Minister made it quite plain that it might be four, five or six years before the full effect of the School Attendance Act was obvious. Many of the pupils to whom Deputy Byrne was referring were children who were, very likely, out of school for a number of years, because we know that before the School Attendance Act came into operation children left school at eleven, twelve and thirteen years of age, many of them before they had reached the Fourth Standard. That no longer prevails, and there is no use in Deputy Byrne producing an extremely limited set of figures to prove a general case. He spoke of examinations but he said nothing of the standard of these examinations, and he said nothing of the standard compared with the standard in other countries. It is again a case of taking a particular instance, as is so often done, and drawing a general conclusion from it. One would think that a man of Deputy Byrne's scholastic and academic attainments would see the fallacy of that line of argument. I am afraid that when we see the nature of the arguments that Deputy Byrne so often brings to the consideration of questions in this House we must have a certain amount of sympathy with the man in the street who begins to question the value of some of these scholastic and academic distinctions.

Mr. Byrne: Might I ask the Deputy if there was not an attendance of 86 per cent. in the city of Dublin?

[428] Mr. O'Connell: Even if there was, that does not affect the argument in the least.

Mr. Byrne: To my mind it does.

Mr. O'Connell: That is where the Deputy and I differ. A child may have attendance every day for six months in 1927, but we have no record of that child's attendance for 1926, 1925 and 1924. In any case that does not prove what the Deputy set out to prove, that the standard of education in this country is lower than it was, or, as he said, that we are fifty years behind the times compared with other countries. If he wants to compare the standard let him take boys or girls who have attended for the same number of years regularly, the same class of schools, and then we will have something to go on. Picking up a few children in one particular area and trying to base on that a standard of education for the whole country is of no value of any kind.

There is one matter that I think arises in a general way on this question of education that has not been raised hitherto in the debate, and that I think is well worthy of attention. It has been previously mentioned, both inside and outside the Dáil, that people, when looking at the amount of money devoted to education in this country, while they do not complain of the amount, undoubtedly express a doubt as to whether or not full value is being got for that money. But I am afraid that many of those who ask that question do so without regard to whether or not the programme or curriculum generally, in kind or quantity, is sufficient or right, or whether the teaching staff is properly qualified, fully trained, and is working diligently and assiduously. Speaking for myself, as far as these two aspects of the problem are concerned. I believe there can be very little doubt. It is open to us to alter the programme if we think it necessary to do so. Here let me say that we have evidence in many quarters of a want of realisation of what should be done in the [429] primary schools. If one were to agree with Deputy Byrne one would imagine that the primary school was expected to turn out fully qualified architects. That is not the work of the primary school.

Mr. Byrne: I never suggested that it was. I suggested that the pupils have the rudiments of drawing.

Mr. O'Connell: There is a long way between that and being able to draw plans. I forget the exact words used by the Deputy, but the impression left on my mind was that pupils would be expected to know something very much more than the rudiments of drawing. All that can be hoped to be done in the primary school is to lay the foundation, in fact, to put the child in the way of learning, training him to be able when he leaves school to embark on a course of education. You cannot hope to fill the child's mind—and it would be a wrong thing to attempt to do so—with a lot of information, and, as it were, to finish him off. You can only hope to bring him up to the age of 13 or 14 when he will be able to avail of further education. I wonder whether, in fact, we are getting full value for the money spent on education. But the aspect to which I would direct the Minister's attention is something different from what has been mentioned. I think it must be obvious to anybody that if the ordinary child is to gain the full benefit from the teaching in the school the child must be in ordinary normal health. I am afraid that that is a matter which has been very seriously neglected in this country up to the present. We find in our ordinary schoolrooms a state of affairs which is no longer found in a great many other countries, that is, the children all together in the same class—children of varying standards of health and varying standards of mental development. There is first the question of health. During the debate on the Vote for the Department of Local Government and Public Health attention was called to this matter, and, I think, we have no reason whatever to be satisfied with [430] the progress that is being made in the matter of medical inspection and treatment of children. Some progress has been made, but it is exceedingly slow. That is not a matter for which the Minister for Education is directly responsible, but I suggest that it is a matter which directly affects the education of the country, because, if children are suffering from defective vision, defective hearing, adenoids, or the usual ailments that so many children, on investigation, are found to be suffering from, then it is obvious that these children cannot avail to the full of the teaching in the school. The teacher's work is, to that extent, wasted, and to that extent we are not getting value for the money spent on education.

But there is another aspect of this question which, so far as I know, has received practically no attention whatsoever in this country, but which is made the subject of special study in other countries. That is the question of the abnormal, or perhaps I should say the sub-normal child. Every teacher must know that in a class of children there will be 75 per cent., or perhaps more, of normal development and normal intelligence, who will be able to make normal progress in their standard, but there will be a small percentage of what are sometimes spoken of as stupid children—a term that should never be applied to them—or dull children, as the case may be. They are children not fully or normally developed, and they have a hampering effect on the class, because in an ordinary class the attention of the teacher will be devoted, and perhaps rightly so in the circumstances, very largely to these children, to the detriment of the normal children. The progress of the class will be determined to some extent by the progress of these children. In most other countries there is a segregation of such children. They are not treated as stupid children or made to feel that they are backward, but they are segregated into a class and get special treatment. They are taught by teachers who have a special aptitude [431] and treated in a manner suitable to their mental development. We have nothing of that kind here so far. I admit that there might be difficulties in the rural areas, but in the cities especially this is a matter that ought to be tackled, to see whether or not such a segregation of sub-normal children could be made and have them treated and taught in accordance with their mental development and their ability to absorb the teaching. In some schools which I visited in the United States last autumn I saw this carried out to a very great extent. Special treatment is provided for these children and they are taught hand work, and are very happy because they are all, as it were, equal in their attainments and have no feeling of inferiority which so-called dull or backward children have very often when they are in the same class as normally-developed children.

There is another class of children to whom no special consideration seems to be given in an organised way—that is, mentally-deficient children, who are even in a lower standard as regards mental development than those to whom I have referred. They, too, are not dealt with in the organised way in which they should be dealt with. In fact, if there is one thing in our educational system that would strike a stranger, it is the want of attention to the physical well-being of the children, whether in the matter of medical inspection and treatment or of special attention to children of sub-normal development. I should like to repeat and emphasise what I have spoken of on other occasions, that we have no department in connection with the Ministry of Education whose special duty it would be to find out what is being done in this way in other countries. I think there ought to be connected with the Department a special branch which would do research work and find out what is being done in other countries in this matter, what progress is being made, what new methods are being [432] adopted, not only in regard to educational administration generally, but in regard to teaching and a great many matters of that kind, so as to keep the Ministry in touch with educational progress throughout the world. It is a pity that we have not such a branch to which people interested in educational progress and welfare might have recourse for information, and which would from time to time issue publications for the information of people, because if there is one thing we want more than anything else, it is a public opinion in regard to education. We have no informed public opinion in this country in the matter of education.

The question of the health of the school children brings me to the matter of school accommodation. I do not want to go into this question again at great length, because I did so last October, but I should like to ask what progress has been made, if any, in providing school accommodation. I think it was in June last that the Minister spoke of the number of school buildings required— 350 new buildings, 550 schools which required enlargement, and some 900 which required repairs of one kind or another. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what progress has been made in that matter. I regret to see that the amount for building new schools this year has been reduced by £25,000. Perhaps the Minister will tell us the reason for that. Is it that he has overtaken the school-building programme, or is it purely in the interests of economy, or that he has not been able to spend the £100,000 voted last year? I think we should hear from the Minister something with regard to the question of school accommodation. It is a matter that is causing a great deal of trouble, especially in Dublin.

I should also like to hear from him what progress, if any, has been made in the matter of the upkeep of schools. Does he look forward to any change in the present system, or want of system? We know that there have been developments in some counties during the past year. Schools have been condemned by [433] the local boards of health. Is the Minister satisfied that it is sufficient, from his point of view, to put the onus for the upkeep of the schools upon the local manager? He cannot but be aware of the practice that prevails in the majority of the rural schools of the country in the matter of ordinary cleanliness, apart from the question of the heating of the schools. The usual practice was, and is, in a very large number of cases, that the children, after their day, are asked to brush the schools. I think that that is a wholly reprehensible practice and one that should not continue, but the Minister must know that it is the practice in a very large number of primary schools. Parents, in many cases, are objecting and, in my opinion, rightly objecting, to the continuation of this practice. I would like to know, in case they object, what is to be done. How are the schools to be cleaned? Is he satisfied that it is the onus of the managers to provide for the cleaning of the schools and for their upkeep?

A question was raised here about the price of books and the cost to the parents. It is a heavy expense, indeed, on many parents, and that is a consideration which I think must be taken into account in reference to the constitutional position. We are in a different position from people across the water in this that we have a written Constitution. One of the Articles of our written Constitution is that the citizens of the Free State have a right to free primary education. What exactly does that entail? What obligation does that put upon the State so far as the individual young citizen is concerned? I suggest to the Minister that the child who has to pay for the means of education—school books and school exercises—and who has to provide in some form or another for the heating of the schools to which he goes, is not being provided with free elementary education. I submit for the Minister's consideration that, speaking as a layman and not as a lawyer, if the parent of a child proceeded against the Minister under Article 10 of the Constitution he might very [434] well be upheld in the courts if he insisted on having books and other things necessary for free education up to the age of fourteen provided for him. In any case, in the matter of school accommodation and equipment I think it is certainly the duty of the State to provide that for the child, and we know that in the matter of school accommodation and equipment there is very much indeed wanting at the present time.

Deputy O'Clery referred to one or two matters of importance. I do not know whether Deputy O'Clery is aware of the fact that in school there is at the present time on the curriculum a subject known as rural science. He gave me the impression that the farmers, and the people in the country were not satisfied with the education that the children are getting, and he thinks it is perhaps for that reason. My own experience is that I have never known an ordinary man satisfied with the education that is being given in the schools; he always finds something to complain of in it, and to say that things were different in his day, when he was at school. I myself, long before rural science was made a compulsory subject in the schools, thought that it would be a good thing to teach children in the rural areas the elements of plant life, to give them some experience in the matter, and to teach the rudiments underlying these things. But I found as a result that the children were withdrawn from my school because their parents said that they sent their children to school to learn something and not to dig the master's garden. I am afraid that that has been the experience of more people than myself. Deputy O'Clery told us that the farmers living near the schools would be glad to place a rood or so of ground at the disposal of the Department as a playground. Deputy O'Clery and I come from the same county, and I would be glad if Deputy O'Clery would find some of those farmers who are willing to place a rood or two of ground at the disposal of the Department for a playground. I have not met that particular farmer yet, anyhow.

[435] Mr. Moore: Perhaps he means for a consideration?

Mr. O'Connell: He did not say so. He said farmers who would be glad to place it at the disposal of the Department. I think the price of land in the neighbourhood of schools would go up considerably if it was found that the Minister for Education was anxious to acquire land. I suggest, in that connection, something might be done when estates were being divided up by the Land Commission. It might then be possible. Unfortunately, you find that these ranches are not always in the neighbourhood of schools, but I think, perhaps, to some extent the difficulty might be met if, in transferring tenants to ranches, consideration was given to the necessity for providing plots of land in the neighbourhood of schools for playing fields and for the purpose of demonstration plots also.

Another matter—and this, I suppose, would be a matter more for the Public Health Department than the Minister for Education—that I would like to call attention to is the necessity for a pure water supply in connection with schools, whether in town or country. I think it ought to be the policy of the Minister for Education, or the Minister for Public Health, to insist, in so far as he can, on the provision of a pure water supply in connection with schools. I know schools in rural areas where the nearest water supply, and that but a mediocre supply, is half a mile distant from the schools. Children bring water in open buckets every morning for the use of the pupils every day. That is a matter, I think, that is deserving of very great attention.

There are a few other matters to which I shall refer briefly, and which I would like the Minister to deal with. A Departmental Committee sat for a considerable time some years ago in regard to the matter of the training colleges and the training of teachers generally. That Committee finished its labours, but we have heard nothing of the result. I would like to ask what has been the outcome of the inquiry, which extended [436] for a considerable period, and I would like to know why we never heard what has been the result.

There is very great complaint in regard to the delay that occurs in the issue of diplomas to teachers who have been trained. There is one matter in connection with it that I want to call attention to, and that is the date that appears on the diplomas. The regulation is that a teacher must serve two years, after leaving the training college, as a probationary period. I think that is a rather considerable time. At the end of the two years, if the teacher's work is deemed satisfactory, he is told that his probation has been completed, and that his increments will begin to date from that time. But, in practice, the diploma is not issued for six or seven months later, and it often happens that the period is much longer. What occurs then is that the date which appears on the diploma is the date on which it has been issued rather than the date upon which the probationary period was completed. I suggest to the Minister that it is the latter date that should appear on the diploma, because the date of the completion of the probationary period is the significant date. The other date is a purely arbitrary one. It is whatever date it may be convenient for the Minister to sign the diploma and issue it. That date may be six weeks or six months after the date on which the teacher has completed his probationary period.

I now direct the Minister's attention to the question of the absence of teachers from school on account of illness. In this matter teachers suffer from a disability which other public servants are not subjected to. If a teacher is absent from school for more than a month on account of illness he has to provide and pay his own substitute. That imposes a very severe strain on the financial resources of a teacher, because, of course, it is at that particular time that he wants his salary most. If the teacher is unable to provide and [437] pay a substitute during illness, then somebody else has to do it for him. This question was raised here before. I would like to know from the Minister if he has made any inquiries as to whether a more equitable system, so far as teachers are concerned, could not be devised, such, for instance, as by the transfer of teachers. That is what is done in most other countries. They have a number of teachers on what is called “supply”—extra teachers who are sent out to schools where the regular teacher is absent on account of illness. That is the practice, too, that is normal in the Civil Service and in other public services, and I say it should apply to teachers, so that if a teacher is absent on account of illness there will be someone to take his place. The teacher should not be obliged to provide a substitute, as he has to do at present, and pay the substitute out of his own pocket.

The question of the progress made in the teaching of Irish was raised. I agree with Deputy Mullins, who referred to the point, that the real trouble as to the continuation of the good effect of the work done in the national schools in the Galltacht arises after the children leave school. Deputy Pádraig O hOgáin asked if it were possible for children who spend six or seven years in a national school in the Galltacht to become Irish speakers at the end of that period? Well, it is possible. We have numerous instances of children who for six or seven years have been attending schools in the City of Dublin and in the Midlands and who are fluent speakers of the Irish language and are able to converse with native Irish speakers at the end of their school period. But what becomes of them then? That is the question, and that is where the difficulty lies. If we want to make our policy effective it is to that end of the problem, I think, that we must devote attention. It is all right, of course, in the Gaeltacht where the language is alive, but the problem that presents itself is, what can be done in the case of children who have acquired a good knowledge [438] of the Irish language in schools in the Galltacht in the way of keeping them together and getting them to practise speaking the language. It is very difficult to know what can be done in that direction. Various things have been suggested, such as classes, societies, and scout organisations of one kind or another. All these things might, of course, be very useful in their way, but if we are to have any value for the money we are spending in the teaching of Irish in the schools in the Galltacht I believe that we must give attention to that aspect of the problem.

I now wish to refer to the suggestion that I have made before—that I would like to see issued by the Department to every school something in the nature of a monthly journal. That is being done at present in some other countries and in the Dominions, especially in South Africa and Australia. The Department of Education in these countries issues monthly, and sometimes at more frequent intervals, an official journal to the schools. The journal deals with such matters as administration, changes in the inspectorate, and publishes articles on modern teaching methods, as well as pointing to developments in the teaching of various subjects in other countries, and also suggesting new methods to the teachers. I refer now to the need for having something in the nature of an educational publication which would keep the teachers in touch with the latest developments in their particular work. Such a publication would, I think, be very useful from many points of view. I suggest to the Minister that his Department might consider whether it should not prepare and issue a journal of that kind.

I am almost ashamed—but as Deputy Tierncy said, we have to keep on repeating things—to have to refer to a publication known as “The Notes for Teachers,” which was promised so long ago as 1925 or 1926. I have referred to the matter year after year, asking why it has not been issued. Like the rules, [439] which we hope some day to see issued, I suppose that we shall likewise see the “Notes for Teachers” issued some day. I suggest that it is more important that a publication of this kind should be issued than that inspectors should be going around the country pointing out, in a few schools, how certain work should be done. I think it would be far more important to detach two or three inspectors, as was suggested by the programme conference, and set them to do this work. In that way their work, as set out in the “Notes,” would reach all teachers instead of the small number of teachers that they may happen to come in contact with in the course of their inspection. I suggest that this is a very important matter from the point of view of the teaching service as a whole, that the most modern methods of dealing with the subjects taught in the schools, and especially those new subjects that were put on the programme lately, should be brought to the notice of the teachers. This information, instead of having it confined to the few teachers the inspectors can reach in the course of their visits, should be put together in such a form that all the teachers in the country will have it before them at all times and particularly when they find it necessary to refer to it.

Mr. Good: I must candidly confess that I am disappointed with the Estimate of the Minister for Education, and particularly with his Estimate for technical education. I have drawn attention in past years to the inadequacy of the grants for technical instruction, but, protest that, notwithstanding, the grants seem to reduce year by year. I have the figures before me showing the net amount of the Estimates for the last five years. In 1925-26 the Estimate amounted to £167,720. That has shrunk gradually year by year until the figure this year is £141,217. If we had any proper vitality in the Department of Education a department of such national importance as that of technical instruction ought [440] to have an increasing grant. Instead we have got a reduction every year, and this year we have practically the biggest reduction of any year. There has been a reduction of £26,500 in five years, or a reduction of 16 per cent. To-day the Minister puts forward for technical instruction the miserable estimate of 11d. per head of the population. There is no enthusiasm behind this department of technical instruction. Let us contrast what the Minister is doing for technical instruction with the other departments of education. Take the years I have given with regard to the Estimates for technical instruction, and take the Estimates for the same years for primary education.

The net Estimate for 1925-26 for primary education was £3,475,832. That Estimate has since grown to £3,610,793, and there is in the present year an increase of £134,961, or an increase of 4 per cent. as against a reduction of 16 per cent. in the case of technical instruction. We are spending on primary education £1 4s. 1½d. per head of the population as against a miserable 11d. on technical instruction. Taking secondary education, we find that in the year 1925-26 the Estimate was £261,535. That has grown to £300,800 in the present year, notwithstanding the financial stringency, an increase of £39,265 in the five years, or an increase of 15 per cent. We expend two shillings in the pound on secondary education as against 11d. on technical instruction. I have urged, when dealing with this matter on previous occasions, that in view of its importance from the point of view of employment, and of equipping our people to meet the battle of life, it was necessary there should be a larger expenditure on technical instruction. What is the very first, in fact the primary, recommendation of the Commission on Technical Instruction which the Minister set up and which reported on 5th October, 1927? It is given in page 51, paragraph 115, of their report:

“It is our view that a proper [441] system of continuation education is of vital importance to the social and economic welfare of the people, and its organisation must be undertaken without delay.”

Though that report was issued in October, 1927, here we are in April, 1929, and can it be said that any step whatever has been taken to give effect to that report? The Minister has told us he has a Bill to introduce that will give effect to the recommendations of that Commission. He has also told us on several occasions that it will be an expensive matter to carry out the recommendations of the Commission. It is quite obvious we are not going to see any of the recommendations given effect in the coming financial year, for there is no provision whatever in the Estimates for the carrying out of the recommendations. We are told that the local authorities must do more in that connection. The local authorities have struck their Estimates. In most cases there is no scheme before them. The local authorities are limited to the expenditure of 2d. in the pound under the 1899 Act for the purpose of technical instruction. Where is the money to come from? What provision is there for carrying out this recommendation which is immediately necessary?

I must say, frankly, that I am disappointed at the efforts of this Department to deal with this urgent problem. It has been pointed out in this House from time to time that the difficulty of getting employment for young people between the ages of 14 and 16 was a growing one. We all know that any boy or girl in the city or in the country under the age of 16 finds it exceedingly difficult to get employment. Practically all those boys and girls leave school at the age of 14. It has been urged that they should be retained where they have not got employment up to the age of 16. We are told there is no accommodation in the schools, that the schools are already overcrowded, but that makes the problem, to my mind, more urgent. We spend large sums [442] in educating these young people to equip them for the battle of life, and we throw them out of the schools and leave them there at the most critical period of their lives. What happens? These boys and girls, after they have left school at the age of 14, register for employment at the unemployment exchanges. They come to these exchanges day after day for four or five months expecting to hear of something. No opening offers and they get disappointed with life, even the brightest and best of them. Then they turn their attention in other directions. They become a difficulty to the State and to their parents. That is the position in which these boys and girls are placed at the most critical and most useful period of their lives, though the Commission reported that they should be in continuation schools. The girls should be taught domestic economy and dress-making in order to make them useful citizens, and the boys should be taught how to work, and they should get some useful knowledge that would help them in getting employment.

That could all be done and most usefully done during the ages of fourteen and sixteen—the two most important years. To any of them who can get employment under the recommendations of the Commission this compulsory attendance is not to apply. There the case will be met. But the percentage, as I have said, of those of that particular age who cannot get employment is very large. That is a problem that we have urged again and again on the Ministry with the view to having something done to meet it. Those who are in touch with education know that if a boy or girl is allowed to run wild for two years, when they leave school—until they reach sixteen—then when they become qualified for unemployment grants under the Insurance Act at the age of sixteen, in order to get those grants they have to go to technical schools and qualify through their attendance. But then they have been running wild, as I have said, for two [443] years. It is most difficult to make any progress with them because of their having been allowed to run wild for two years. Then we make it compulsory for them to attend technical schools when it is too late.

I feel so strongly upon this problem that comes before me in connection with the Department of Juvenile Employment in our City with which I have been connected for some years that I want to press this very much upon the attention of the Minister. We get 6,000 or 7,000 youngsters from our schools, boys and girls, every year, registering for employment. We are not, to our cost, able to find employment for one-tenth of them. If we can do as the Commission recommended that we should do with the balance that cannot find employment, we will make them much more eligible for employment. Many of these boys and girls become unemployable because they have no idea of work. They are so ignorant when they come along to an employer that the employer will not take the time or the trouble to train them. They must be trained. They must be equipped outside before they come along. We cannot get that done. I am satisfied that the number of unemployed in this country will continue at the present inflated figure until something is done to make many of them who are unemployable, employable. That is the problem that is involved in technical instruction. The object of technical instruction is to equip those and have them educated for the battle of life through a definite course of instruction. That is the object of it, and until steps are taken by the Ministry to do something on those lines to deal with this problem, I certainly, unless the Minister is prepared to give an undertaking to this House that something will be done in the immediate future, am going to vote against this Estimate.

Domhnall Ua Buachalla: Nílim ar aon intinn leis an rud a dubhairt Teachta Pádraig O h-Ógáin o chianaibh, nuair a bhí sé ag cainnt ar an gceist seo i dtaobh na Gaoluinne. [444] Dubhairt sé gur aimsir agus airgead caithte le fánaigh an méid airgid agus an méid aimsire a caitheadh ag múineadh na Gaoluinne sa Ghalltacht. Táim ar aon aigne leis an rud a dubhairt Mícheál O Tighearnaigh, Teachta, go bhfuil obair mhaith thabhachtach á dhéanamh sna sgoileanna sa Ghalltacht. Bhíos féin le déanaí i scoil i gceart-lár na tíre in a bhfuil an Ghaoluinn a múineadh agus b'ionghna liom an oireadh Gaoluinne agus a bhí ag na páistí annsin. Do bhí beirt bhanmhúinteóirí sa sgoil sin agus an Gha