Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1938 > Committee of Public Accounts > Report - Appropriation Accounts 1936 - 1937

MIONTUAIRISC NA FINNEACHTA

(Minutes of Evidence)

Deardaoin, 19adh Bealtaine, 1938.

Thursday, 19th May, 1938.

The Committee met at 11 a.m.

DEPUTY J. DILLON in the Chair.

Mr. J. Maher (representing the Comptroller and Auditor-General), and Mr. C. S. Almond (An Roinn Airgeadais) called and examined.

VOTE 45—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR EDUCATION.

Mr. Seosamh O’Neill, called.

No question.

VOTE 46—PRIMARY EDUCATION.

Mr. Seosamh O’Neill called and examined.

Paragraph 28, Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report:—

“I have referred in previous reports to the discussions which were proceeding between the Departments of Finance and Education on the procedure to be followed in cases where claims for the recovery of the cost of training arose. Agreement has now been reached on the points which were outstanding, and I have asked for particulars of the cases in which action falls to be taken.”

133. Chairman.—Have you any further comment to make on that, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—The question of recovery of cost of training has already been before the Committee, and in the Committee’s last report it asked to be informed when final agreement had been reached. An agreement has now been reached and is in operation. So far as can be seen, the arrangements for giving effect to it appear to be adequate, and the Comptroller and Auditor-General will, if necessary, refer to its working in his future reports. We have not received the particulars asked for in the final paragraph, but it is understood that they will be available shortly.

134. Chairman.—Mr. Maher refers to the last paragraph of the note which asks for particulars of the cases in which action falls to be taken in connection with proceedings against students or teachers who did not complete their course of training. Are these particulars yet available, Mr. O’Neill?

Mr. O’Neill.—As a matter of fact, there is a tremendous number of them. There are hundreds of them, and they are being prepared, but are not fully available yet.

135. Lists are now being prepared, and when available will be handed to the Comptroller and Auditor-General?—Yes, they are very nearly complete.

136. Chairman.—Paragraph 29, Comptroller and Auditor-General’s report:—

“Fees amounting to £45 were ad vanced to a student who, having completed his period of training, served as a national teacher from October, 1934, to June, 1935. The teacher was convicted at the Circuit Court in January, 1936, and was subsequently declared ineligible for recognition as a national teacher. I am informed that, in view of the form of agreement which the teacher had signed, the cost of his training was not recoverable and that, as the question of the recovery of fees advanced follows that of cost of training proper, no action was contemplated. Salary was not paid for the teacher’s period of service.”

Mr. Maher.—In this case there is really a double loss to the State: (1) in respect of the cost of training, and (2) in respect of the repayable advances. Normally, the student would repay these advances if he completed his training and was in employment, and the failure to recover the £45 in this case is equivalent to the abandonment of the claim. Consequently, following the Audit Office practice, claims of that nature which are abandoned are generally referred to in the report.

137. Chairman.—I take it, Mr. O’Neill, that in fact there is no use in pursuing this claim?

Mr. O’Neill.—No. The student in question was extremely poor and there would be no use in following up that case.

138. Deputy Walsh.—What is meant by saying “in view of the form of agreement which the teacher had signed”? Are there different forms of agreement?

Mr. Maher.—The old form of agreement prior to 1935 did not provide for the recovery of the cost. Consequently, on the advice of the Law Officers, a new form of agreement was brought into force subsequent to 1935. As this teacher signed the form of agreement prior to 1935, which is not enforceable, the claim was consequently abandoned.

Paragraph 30—Comptroller and Auditor-General’s Report:—

Sub-head A 3—Preparatory Colleges, etc.

“The boarding cost per head for the school year 1936-37 ranged from 7/- per week to 8/9 per week, showing increases as compared with the previous year in four cases and decreases in the remaining three cases.

Accounts have been furnished showing the receipts and expenditure in connection with the farms and gardens for the school year 1936-37, an excess of expenditure over receipts being disclosed in each case. The average fee paid by the students for the same school year was £7 13s. 6d.

The maximum fee payable by students of Preparatory Colleges is £40 per annum, and in cases where recovery of the cost of training falls to be made, the amount to be recovered is assessed on the basis of a liability of £40 for each year of residence. The Department of Finance had agreed to this arrangement pending a decision as to whether the figure should be revised by reference to the actual expenditure incurred by the State in relation to the students. I have inquired whether the question of revising the basis of assessment of liability has yet been determined.”

139. Mr. Maher.—The first part of the paragraph is an annual one, showing the cost per head. The decreases or increases, as the case may be, amount to only a few pence. The second part is also an annual paragraph showing that the receipts and expenditure accounts have been furnished. The third is also referred to annually, in which it is stated that the average school fee is £7 13s. 6d. This shows a decrease compared with previous years. For example, in 1934-5 the average fee was £10 1s. 3d.; in 1935-6 it was £8 14s. 4d.; in this year, as stated in the report, it is £7 13s. 6d: The final part of the paragraph deals with a question which is outstanding between the Department of Finance and the Department of Education, as to whether the basis of £40 a year is an adequate figure in recovering cost of training £40 per year is, of course, the fixed fee which a student could pay, and in cases of recovery it is a matter for agreement with the Department of Finance as to whether that figure should be taken or a higher one. We have not yet been informed whether this matter has been finally determined.

Mr. O’Neill.—We are in communication with the Department of Finance on that point, but we have not yet come to an agreement. I may say that we feel that £40. on which we have been so far basing claims, is the maximum we could require, but the Department of Finance have not yet answered that point.

140. Chairman.—In regard to the average fee paid by students, how does that come to fluctuate between £7 13s. 6d. and the other figures mentioned by Mr. Maher?

Mr. O’Neill.—The chief cause of that would be the increasing influx of pupils from the really poor Irish-speaking districts. There has been a steady increase from year to year of pupils from Donegal, Connemara and the Fíor-Gaeltacht generally. They are unable to pay the full fee in most cases. In fact, most of them cannot pay anything. It is that increase which is the cause of this.

141. Deputy Walsh.—Are these scholarship students?—They are freeplace students. Most of them are Fíor-Gaeltacht students. I should say that 95 per cent, of the cases cannot pay any fees. Then we give them free places, and we also give them a little outfit allowance to get clothes. In fact, they have not enough money to get clothes or pay for travelling.

142. Deputy Smith.—In the event of your finding it necessary to proceed, after these pupils have been trained, to recover the cost of training, is the amount for which you proceed uniform in all cases?—We proceed for £40.

143. Irrespective of whether the contribution of the pupil while in training was £7 13s. 6d. or £40?—If the pupil has paid something, that will be deducted. We ask for whatever may be left of the £40. Suppose a pupil pays £20, we proceed on the £20 basis, but this particular type of pupil rarely can pay anything.

144. Chairman.—Paragraph 31, dealing with Sub-head A (4), reads:—

In connection with certain cases, in which liability to repay the cost of training arose, it was noted that legal opinion had been obtained that certain difficulties might be experienced in the enforcement of the undertakings. I am informed that directions have been sought from the Department of Finance on the question of the institution of proceedings.

Mr. Maher.—The undertaking in these cases provided for the repayment of the cost of training to the Department but we understand that the Law Officers advised that a strictly technical court might hold that there is no such legal personality as the Department and that it should be the Minister for Education. That has given rise to the question as to whether legal proceedings should be taken in the cases referred to in the paragraph and I understand the matter is still in the hands of the Department of Finance for decision.

145. Deputy Walsh.—How are these guarantees completed? Mr. O’Neill referred just now to a boy from the Gaeltacht district who would have nothing. Has he to get guarantors to fulfil his bargain?

Chairman.—Have each of these pupils to get guarantors that they will carry out the terms of the agreement?—The parent or the guardian is the person who signs the agreement in the case of pupil teachers. In the case of the Training Colleges the pupils themselves sign.

146. Deputy Corry.—Are we to understand that the Department will not proceed against them until they get positions?

Chairman.—I think Deputy Corry misunderstands the position. The position is that they will not have to be sued unless they abandon the profession of teaching and determine to give up teaching altogether. They are only sued in the event of their making up their minds not to be teachers and if they take up other positions. If they are looking for jobs as teachers, they have no liability to the Department at all.

Deputy Corry.—But if they have been looking for jobs as teachers and cannot get them, are they prevented from taking up other work?—If there are genuine cases, where they cannot get employment as teachers, in other words where the fact that a teacher does not get a post is due to no fault of his own, we do not pursue him. It is only in cases where a teacher is not genuinely seeking employment as a teacher that action would be taken.

Deputy McMenamin.—Where the teacher holds himself ready to teach, no action is taken.

Mr. O’Neill.—None.

147. Chairman.—Perhaps Mr. Almond can tell us what is the position with regard to the prospect of proceeding against pupil teachers in the manner suggested in this note.

Mr. Almond.—I take it that the Comptroller and Auditor-General is referring to cases that come under the old agreement?

Mr. Maher.—That is so.

Mr. Almond.—We addressed a minute to the Department of Education in which we intended to convey that claims against ex-students of training colleges, ex-students of preparatory colleges and expupil teachers should remain in abeyance, and that they should not proceed to prosecution. There appears to have been some confusion about our minute, and apparently it has not been regarded as applying to pupil teachers. We intended that it should so apply. The matter is connected with the observations in paragraph 28 which covers the case of an exstudent of a training college. We intended to group the three classes together, and to allow these claims to remain in abeyance. They would not be actively pursued, but where an offer of payment would be made it would be accepted as it has been accepted in one case. We would also effect recovery in the cases of ex-students who became civil servants. We propose now to address a further minute to the Department of Education referring specifically to the case of pupil teachers, so that the matter will be cleared up.

148. Deputy Smith.—Is it not an extraordinary thing, if Finance has instructed Education that in certain cases they have no legal right to proceed, that should any proportion of these people secure State employment of another type, the amount will be recovered from their salaries, whilst another section of these ex-pupil teachers may secure outside employment and will not be proceeded against?

Mr. Almond.—The position is that before a person becomes a civil servant, as a condition of taking the examination he agrees to refund any moneys spent either for his training in the preparatory college or as a pupil-teacher, or in a training college.

149. Deputy Smith.—You insist on holding the stick over his head until you get him to agree to do something that you have been advised he is not legally obliged to do?

Mr. Almond.—We have been advised that we cannot sue under the agreement which he has signed, but we can say to him: “Before you become a civil servant you must agree to refund to us the money the State has expended on your training, as that training is helping you to become a civil servant.”

150. Deputy Smith.—I quite see your point, but at the same time it seems an extraordinary thing if you take 12 young men who have been trained as teachers at the expense of the State, you go to your law officers and ask them for advice as to whether you should proceed for recovery of the money spent on the training of these teachers, should they fail to go for the profession, and you are advised that you cannot do so. Then four of these 12 men secure State employment of another type and you hold over these men’s heads this sort of indirect threat: “Unless you four persons refund to the State the amount that has been spent upon your training in college, you cannot get these posts.” Suppose one of these men refused, in face of advice he had got, to recoup the State for the money spent upon him in the training college, would he get a Civil Service post?

Mr. Almond.—No, he would not be allowed to compete at the examination. There is a distinction there. We cannot sue under the old agreement, but we cap say to any of these people who wish to enter the Civil Service: “We will not allow you to come into the Civil Service unless you are prepared to recoup the State for the money spent upon your training as a teacher. When we spent that money the intention was that you would become a teacher. We are now entitled to get that back.’

151. Deputy Smith.—Nevertheless you have allowed the other eight to secure employment outside that may be far more remunerative without making any attempt to recover, knowing well that you are not in a position to recover.

Mr. Almond.—We have n means of recovering in these cases.

152. Deputy Walsh.—I think the position is that the Department, having made a blunder in the first place, now proceed to try to get out of their own blunder by victimising, as it were, a small group of these people as against the majority.

Mr. Almond.—That is not true. Recovery in the case of a civil servant has always applied.

153. Chairman.—I wonder do Deputies overlook the difference between having a good claim and yet being unable legally to enforce it? As far as I can see, these old agreements did give the Minister a good claim against pupil teachers and students, but they were so drafted that they were unenforceable in a court of law. That does not release the pupil from the claim, but it does make it impossible for the Minister to enforce it. If the pupil then voluntarily places himself in a position where the Minister can enforce it, I do not think this Committee would instruct the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Education to abandon such a claim which they are in a position to enforce.

Deputy Smith.—I can see that point all right, but the method of enforcement is not a method that would appeal to me.

Deputy McMenamin.—It is an equitable claim that cannot be enforced in law. It is a moral debt.

Deputy Smith.—It is not equitable to enforce it in this way.

Chairman.—We have got from Mr. Almond all the necessary information on this particular procedure. We can direct Mr. O’Toole to make a note of the matter, and we can discuss the question when we come to draft our report. Paragraph 32, which refers to Sub-head C 1, states:—

“The charge to this sub-head includes a sum of £1,246 2s. 5d., being the amount surrendered to the Exchequer in respect of certain illegal payments of salary and capitation grant made to a teacher in the years 1932-33 to 1935-36 and referred to in former reports. Provision for the charge was made in a Supplementary Estimate.”

154. Mr. Maher.—The question of the illegal payments of salary has been already before the Committee on several occasions, and it recommended in a previous report that the matter should be adjusted by means of a Supplementary Estimate. The purpose of this paragraph is to show that that Supplementary Estimate has been taken and passed by Dáil Eireann, and that the payments are now regularised.

155. Chairman.—Therefore I take it that it does not fall to the Committee to make any further comment, as our view has been met. The paragraph continues:—

“I have referred in previous reports to cases of overpayment of salary to teachers, which arose through the falsification of school records or through the production or maintenance of averages of attendance by means of irregular enrolment of pupils. I understand that agreement has been reached with the Department of Finance on the penal action to be taken against teachers who are guilty of falsification of records, or who otherwise act improperly within the meaning of the Rules, and on certain amendments of the governing Rules which are required to ensure that only the attendances of bona fide pupils shall be included in the determination of the averages governing the appointment and retention of teachers. The action to be taken in certain specific cases of irregularities which had already arisen is under consideration.”

Mr. Maher.—As regards the last paragraph, we have been recently informed agreement has been reached with the Department of Finance, as to the procedure to be adopted in cases of irregularities, and on the revision of the main Rules connected with the issue. It is expected that agreement will also be reached in the immediate future with regard to one or two outstanding points.

156. Deputy Walsh.—Someone referred to pupils in the country, going from one school to another, as the kidnapping of pupils.

Chairman.—If they desire to get the capitation grants, or in order to secure the average to justify the retention of an extra staff, is that the practice of individual teachers?

Mr. O’Neill.—There has been a tendency that way. In other countries teachers are generally employed over a wide area. In England or Scotland a national teacher would be employed in the area of the local authority, so that if a teacher became redundant in one school he could be transferred to another school and would not lose his position. In France teachers are civil servants. In Ireland, owing to the managerial system the area is very small, being only a parish, so that teachers are in a very difficult position. The result was that these irregularities occurred. The next paragraph shows that we have dealt with this difficulty and have created areas similar to those in England and Scotland. In other words, the whole diocese is now the area, and in that area teachers can be transferred as the occasion arises. Our part in that has been that we are willing to pay the teachers until the opportunity arises to transfer them to vacancies in other parts of the larger area. That is really solving the difficulty. Consequently we feel that in future irregularities will not be as likely to occur.

157. Deputy Corry.—Seeing that the matter has been partly fixed up, I can understand the position of a principal teacher of a school, who has an assistant or junior assistant, when the average goes down he does not like to through his assistants, who have gone through an examination, out in the street. That is what it amounted to up to the present.

Chairman.—What point do you make?

Deputy Corry.—As the matter has been fixed up, we may pass the matter over now.

Chairman.—The Deputy suggests that as the matter has been satisfactorily disposed of the Department will not take too grave a view of outstanding cases.

Mr. O’Neill.—The Department of Finance has given us a fairly free hand to deal as best we can with any cases that occurred prior to the panel arrangement. We will do our best.

Deputy Corry.—I take it that the ordinary layman may understand that you are going to deal fairly with them.

158. Chairman.—We are to understand that a lenient view will be taken of cases that arose prior to the new panel arrangement?

The next paragraph in the Report is an elaboration of the one we have dealt with.

“With the sanction of the Department of Finance a scheme has been introduced, with effect from the 1st January, 1937, under which the positions of Assistant Teachers, Lay Assistant Teachers and Junior Assistant Mistresses, and the salaries of Principal Teachers, are safeguarded notwithstanding a decline in the averages of attendances at the schools in which they are serving.

The scheme provides for the establishment, on a diocesan or other approved basis, of panels which shall contain particulars of those teachers whose salaries would fall to be reduced or withdrawn, owing to insufficiency of average attendances, under the former Rules. Vacancies occurring in National Schools are to be filled from the appropriate panels, and, pending appointment to such vacancies, teachers may continue to be recognised in the schools in which they are serving, subject to the regulations other than those relating to average attendance.”

I do not think we need dwell on that paragraph because it elaborates the one we have been discussing.

159. Deputy Corry:—Supposing a vacancy occurs in School A, and that a teacher in School B considers it would be promotion to be transferred to A, and that there is a redundant teacher in School C, will the Department insist on the teacher in C being put into School A, or will they allow for promotion?

Chairman.—I would like to allow the widest possible discretion but there are limits to the questions which we can investigate here. That is clearly a question for the Dáil.

Deputy Corry.—Since the policy has come up here I would like to get the information.

160. Chairman.—I must ask the Deputy to raise that matter in Dáil Eireann on the Minister’s Estimate or by way of question. The paragraph continues:

“Section 6 (4) of the School Attendance Act, 1926, prescribes the conditions under which a child may be transferred from one National School to another. In one case it appeared that attendances made in contravention of that Section operated to secure additional payments of salaries to teachers, and I am in communication with the Accounting officer on the general question of the recovery of additional payments made in such circumstances.”

Deputy Heron.—Does that mean recovery from the teachers or from the officers who made the payments?

Chairman.—I will ask Mr. Maher to deal with that?

Mr. Maher.—I am afraid I could not answer the Deputy’s question. The incidence of recovery is naturally a matter for the Department of Education, but we have been recently informed that steps are being taken to make provision in the revision of Rules in connection with the irregularities in school records, and to take administrative measures with a view to rectifying the position. Section 6 (4) referred to in the paragraph permits the transfer of children only in certain cases, that is to say, at the beginning of a quarter or on change of residence or with the permission of the Minister, but we have noticed occasionally that children are transferred from one school to another outside the provisions of the School Attendance Act. We understand from the Accounting Officer that the matter is now being regularised and will be dealt with in the new Rules.

161. Deputy Walsh.—Cases have occurred where parents removed their children from schools because of a row with the teachers.

Mr. Maher.—We would be concerned only with cases where transfers took place with the object of securing additional payments and salaries to teachers.

162. Deputy Smith.—And in such cases the amounts should be recovered.

Deputy Corry.—I think it would be a matter of concern to us in cases where it would otherwise be impossible to keep Junior Assistant Teachers in their positions.

Deputy Smith.—That is different.

Deputy Corry.—No, it is the same thing.

Chairman.—Are we to take it that effective rules have been drafted to prevent the practice referred to in the note?

Mr. O’Neill.—Yes. We hope the new rules will be effective.

Deputy Cole.—How is the line to be drawn? If parents do not like the way their children are being educated, and want to transfer them to another school convenient, what happens?

Chairman.—In the cases referred to where parents have a personal quarrel with teachers in local schools, and as a result determine to remove the children to a distant school, that does not come strictly within the existing regulations.

Mr. O’Neill.—Yes. The Minister’s sanction would be got for the transfer.

163. Deputy Cole.—Has sanction to be got?—Yes, if the transfer takes place during the quarter. If parents send in an application in cases of that sort, where there was a quarrel with the teachers, we would facilitate them. All we want is to see that the children are not improperly transferred during a quarter. Outside of such cases we would give favourable consideration to any reasonable application for the removal of children, and if sanction is given, that would satisfy the requirements of the Act.

Deputy Cole.—I have a case in mind where a new teacher came to a district and some of the parents do not think he is active. I do not know if he is trying to fill in the time, but certain children are not progressing as the parents wish, and consequently they transfer them to a school in the vicinity. Are parents not entitled to do that in such a case?

164. Chairman.—Deputy Cole’s point refers to a case where a new teacher came to a district, and being, perhaps, an elderly man the parents made up their minds that he was not efficient. While they did not want to complain to the Minister, they would like to exercise their own discretion as to removing the children to a school that might be more efficient. In that case the only course would be to write to the Minister for sanction to transfer them.

Mr. O’Neill.—Yes, but there would not be much harm done if they remain until the end of a quarter. They could go at the end of the quarter when the parents would have full power to remove them.

165. Deputy O Briain.—The permission of the Minister only arises if the transfer happens during the quarter?

Deputy Linehan.—Where the parents of children have a row with the teacher, can they not go to the Manager of the school who for the sake of peace can arrange that they may go somewhere else. That is what I found happened.

Deputy O Briain.—Sometimes.

Deputy Walsh.—They go to nobody, but just remove the children.

Chairman.—The information we have is that if parents want to remove their children from one school to another during the quarter, they must comply with the regulations or get the Minister’s sanction. If they do not choose to do that, they must wait until the end of the quarter when they can remove the children to Timbuctoo if they like. In fact we may take it that no prosecution would be taken unless the Department believed that the transaction was not bona fide.

166. Chairman.—The Report continues:

“I have asked that the covering sanction of the Department of Finance may be obtained for payment of salary for a period of final vacation to a National Teacher from whom recognition was withdrawn owing to inefficiency.”

Chairman.—Has that sanction been received?

Mr. O’Neill.—Yes.

167. Paragraph 33 of the Comptroller and Auditor’s General’s Report states:

Sub-head E.—Appropriations in Aid.

“Sums brought to credit under this Sub-head include refunds of premiums which had been repaid out of the Pension Fund established by the National School Teachers (Ireland) Act, 1879, and compound interest is chargeable on the sums so repaid. I observed that the amount of interest payable was determined by reference to the net amount refunded to the teacher, after deduction of income tax, and I was informed that whilst it had been the practice to calculate the interest on that basis in the past, interest would be calculated on gross amounts in the future. As no adjustment is contemplated in respect of past cases I have asked that the facts be reported to the Department of Finance.”

Mr. Maher.—We have quite recently been informed that the Minister had agreed that no action need be taken towards adjustment in any cases in which interest had been calculated on the net amount of the premiums. That concludes the point made.

168. Chairman.—I take it, so far as the Comptroller and Audtior-General is concerned, that you are satisfied?

Mr. Maher.—Yes.

Chairman.—I take it, if the Comptroller and Auditor-General is satisfied in this matter, we also are satisfied.

Deputy O Briain.—It is a very complicated question.

169. Chairman.—Sub-head C (1)— National Schools—£30,000 is rather a large sum for casual variations; but I suppose the sum in that Sub-head is very large.

Mr. O’Neill.—The sum in the Sub-head is very large. The variation is not quite 1 per cent.

170. Deputy O Briain.—Badh mhaith liom ceist a chur mar gheall ar B. There is a note with regard to examinations for certificates of qualification in Irish. It states that only 1,371 teachers presented themselves in the year in question as against 2,031 in the previous year, could Mr. O’Neill tell us whether there is any explanation? Are there any special reasons for that reduction?

Chairman.—In regard to the note on Sub-head B, Mr. O’Neill, is there any special reason why the number of teachers presenting themselves for that examination has declined so much?

Mr. O’Neill.—The number of teachers who have not got certificates is declining every year. Naturally the number of candidates who would be going for certificates has declined.

Deputy O Briain.—Tá go maith. Táim sásta.

171. Chairman.—In regard to Sub-head C (3). Are you satisfied that this van and boat service is now working satisfactorily? We did ask a number of questions in previous years because we were not quite satisfied that it was then working satisfactorily.

Mr. O’Neill.—The cost is pretty high. That is the only trouble. It comes to about £9 per head, but as we only give the services in necessitous cases we are quite satisfied.

172. Chairman.—Last year, Mr. O’Neill, in view of the fact that you said that you provided this accommodation in necessitous cases we asked if there was an individual Catholic child in an exclusively Protestant area, or an individual Protestant child in an exclusively Catholic area, and it became necessary for that child to travel perhaps ten miles to the nearest Protestant or Catholic school, would a van be provided to carry that child in order to enable it to comply with the School Attendance Act?

Mr. O’Neill.—The School Attendance Act does not apply to that child. If the child lives three miles, or over, from the school, it does not apply. It does not apply either to a child under a certain age living two and a half miles from the nearest suitable school.

173. Chairman.—I take it, by inference, Mr. O’Neill, that a van would not be supplied?

Mr. O’Neill.—A van would not be supplied.

174. Deputy Walsh.—Does that mean three miles from a school of its own denomination?

Mr. O’Neill.—Yes.

175. Deputy Cole.—Three statute miles?

Mr. O’Neill.—Yes; that child need not attend at all if a school of its own denomination is three statute miles away.

176. Deputy Walsh.—In regard to C (5)—Free Grants of School Requisites —does that include books?

Mr. O’Neill.—No. It means maps and similar requisites. When a school is built or there is a very big reconstruction of a school, we supply some of the smaller furniture. We do not supply desks, but we supply easels, maps, charts and pictures, and that sort of thing—the accessories of the school.

177. Deputy Linehan.—Arising out of C (6)—Grants towards the cost of Heating, etc., and Cleansing of Out-offices— what is the explanation for the amount expended being less than the amount granted? Does that mean that the teachers or the manager did not send in a claim?

Mr. Maher.—Unless the claims are sent in by the 31st of March they cannot be included in the account for that year.

178. Deputy Linehan.—I wonder is there an explanation of that, because it is a thing to which I always objected. I object to children brushing and cleaning the schools in the evenings, and if it is carelessness on the part of the teacher or the manager, it is a shame.

Deputy O Briain.—The teacher is not responsible there at all.

Chairman.—Let us always remember that our job here is to ask Mr. O’Neill for information. Then, if we want to make representations, the right place to make them is in Dáil Eireann.

Deputy O Briain.—Is the teacher responsible in that case, Mr. Chairman? I want to ask Mr. O’Neill, through you,

Chairman.—In what case?

Deputy O Briain.—Having the children cleaning the schools in the evening.

Chairman.—Who is responsible for getting the school cleaned? Is it the teacher?

Mr. O’Neill.—No; the manager is responsible.

179. Deputy Linehan.—It is the teacher who makes the children stay?

Deputy Brasier.—I think it inculcates habits of cleanliness in the children if they are taught to keep the school clean. It cultivates those habits. The Chairman is smiling, but I think there is something in it.

Chairman.—Be assured that I am not smiling at what you said, but what I was smiling at is, why on earth should we inquire into this matter at this Committee? There are other places and other circumstances in which we can do it.

Deputy Corry.—After all, the point is rather a straight one. If there is money given to every school for cleaning purposes, why should children be kept there to clean that school when money is being provided out of public funds and the money go elsewhere? That is the point, and a very serious point.

Mr. O’Neill.—This year the maximum grants have been quadrupled so as to prevent as far as possible the use of children for that purpose. The original grant was one that was handed down for quite a long time, and it became insufficient. Now we are giving four times as much, so that I do not think there will be any further trouble.

180. Deputy Corry.—The whole issue is that there is no justification at present for children being kept for school cleaning purposes.

Deputy O Briain.—The amount provided in this year’s Estimate is £30,000; that would be double the previous amount.

Mr. O’Neill.—Yes, but we have authority to give up to £65,000.

Deputy Walsh.—Has the Department any means of seeing that this money is spent for the purpose for which it is provided?

Mr. O’Neill.—We get vouchers. We are very exact about vouchers, particularly since we gave the new grants. Also, the inspectors have to report on the cleanliness of the school generally.

181. Deputy Cole.—Is every school heated and cleaned?

Mr. O’Neill.—Every school is heated.

182. Deputy O’Reilly.—And cleaned?

Mr. O’Neill.—Yes, heated and cleaned. Some of the bigger and newer schools are centrally heated.

183. Deputy Cole.—But otherwise the old grates are heated by the Government?

Chairman.—The manager is provided with money to purchase fuel for the old fireplace, if there is one.

Mr. O’Neill.—We expect the locality and the manager to supply half, and we supply half. The maximum grant has been quadrupled in order to enable us to do that.

184. Deputy O’Reilly.—Have we reached the stage now, Mr. Chairman, in which we can state there is no longer any necessity to get children to clean the schools?

Chairman.—Mr. O’Neill said, in his opinion, there is no longer any justification for compelling children to clean schools, that the grants ought to be sufficient now to enable the managers to get that work done without making the children do it.

Deputy O’Reilly.—There is no proof that that work has been done beyond the return of a voucher.

Deputy McMenamin.—And inspection.

Deputy O’Reilly.—Inspection generally takes place after 10 o’clock.

Deputy O Briain.—An inspection may take place at half-past 9.

Chairman.—In any case, Mr. O’Neill’s function is to disburse that money to the managers, to get a voucher for it, and be satisfied by the inspector that the work is being done. If we are not satisfied with that system, then we must raise the matter in Dáil Eireann and ask the Minister to establish a new system.

185. Deputy Heron.—Arising out of C (7), may I ask, Sir, what exactly that item is—Teachers’ Residences?

Chairman.—What does that item for teachers’ residences actually represent?

Mr. O’Neill.—It represents the interest on old loans. Loans were given for the erection of teachers’ residences by the Board of Works. We pay half of that, and the manager pays half, that is, interest and sinking fund; we pay 2½ per cent. It is practically extinct now, because the loans are nearly all paid.

186. Chairman.—Arising out of C (8)— Bonus to parents or guardians of certain pupils in the Gaeltacht—is that the grant in respect of children speaking Irish in their own households?

Mr. O’Neill.—Yes.

187. Chairman.—What method have you for ascertaining that Irish is the vernacular of the household?

Mr. O’Neill.—The inspector makes a very close investigation in each case. In every single case where a grant is paid, the inspector investigates and goes actually to the house, and he gets the opinion of the manager and local opinion generally. He checks as far as he can in every way so as to make sure we do not pay a grant to anyone except in those cases where Irish is the language of the house.

Chairman.—I feel bound to sound a note of warning there. You referred to the inspector consulting the manager, visiting the house and consulting local opinion. I think that difficulty arises not only in the Department of Education but in the Department responsible for the land division—

Deputy O Briain.—Gaeltacht Services.

Chairman.— —— where inspectors with perfect good will do try to get local opinion, but they want to be very tactful when they are looking for local opinion, because there is a danger that by the merest mischance they may consult two or three men who all belong to one political Party or another. That might be quite absent from the inspector’s mind, but the local people might either charge him with being a staunch supporter of the Fine Gael Party or alternatively, with being an acrimonious Fianna Fáiler who only goes to Fianna Fáilers. I think it is wise to point out to inspectors that that is a thing they ought to take precautions against, and they ought to ensure that they do not create that impression on the local mind.

Deputy Smith.—But since they are all of one political persuasion that danger hardly arises.

Deputy O Briain.—I do not see, in any case, how Mr. O’Neill could give instructions to the inspectors to ask about political matters on a question of that kind. The inspectors and officials of a Government Department are supposed to take no cognisance whatever of the political views of anybody. They are not supposed to do that in the discharge of their duties. I think Mr. O’Neill would be treading on very dangerous grounds, and you, Mr. Chairman, would be treading on very dangerous grounds in giving advice to the secretary of the Department of Education, or the secretary of any other Department, in a matter of that kind. The duty of the inspector would be to deal with the situation as it arises in respect of any matter of that kind. My view is that on a visit to any of these houses the inspector will not be speaking to the people for five minutes before he will be able to form an idea himself as to whether the house is a genuinely Irish-speaking house. He can get that fact established for himself without making any local investigation whatever.

Deputy Walsh.—There is much more control over this money under Sub-head C (8) than there is under Sub-head C (6) —the grant for heating and cleansing of schools.

Deputy Smith.—There is something in what Deputy O’Briain has said. In all these matters you have to leave it to the discretion of some individual where you have placed on his shoulders the responsibility for making a decision. You may meet some persons who from some personal cause—and there might be other causes much more dangerous than political causes—where it would be dangerous to ask for their opinions as to whether the John So-and-so family are Irish speakers and whether they use Irish entirely in the home. You might from such a person get an opinion that may not at all conform to the facts of the case. Under any system you are bound to have mistakes of one kind or another, no matter how you try to avoid them. I do not think you could devise any means by which that danger would be eliminated. After taking all possible precautions you are going to have these mistakes, and an injustice may be done no matter what you do.

Chairman.—All we can do is to take all the precautions that can be taken. We do not embarrass Mr. O’Neill by making these suggestions, but we might as well pass on any tit-bits to him when the opportunity presents itself.

Mr. Heron.—Might I suggest to the Chairman that the matter he has raised would be more properly raised in the Dáil?

Chairman.—I am sorry to think that I myself have been out of order in allowing a wide latitude to my colleagues.

188. Deputy Cole.—What would be the average amount paid to each family?

Deputy O Briain.—The figure is £2 per pupil.

Chairman.—Could you tell the Committee what is the average figure for the various families?

Mr. O’Neill.—I have not got the figures at the moment.

Chairman.—Is that a matter to which you attach any importance, Deputy Cole?

Deputy Cole.—No, sir.

Chairman.—Is there now any other comment?

189. Deputy Heron.—If I am not out of order on this question of overpayments I would like to ask Mr. O’Neill if he is satisfied with the staffing arrangements in the Department, whether the payments made are satisfactory from the point of view of checking them; is there a sufficient check on the payments made, and if the office staff is so designed as to insure that there is a sufficient check?

Mr. O’Neill.—I think so. There has been about £50,000,000 paid by the Department since I became Accounting Officer, and we have a record of only one mistake since. That is to say, only one mistake actually of an overpayment through error on the part of the office staff.

190. Deputy Heron.—So that the actual overpayments are due to things that happen in the schools?—Yes, all of them except this one.

191. Deputy Walsh.—I noticed that there has been no charge for seeds for school gardens this year. Has that payment been stopped?—That comes under C (4)—Incidental Expenses. In actual fact, there was no charge for seeds under C (4).

Chairman.—Yes, if Deputy Walsh will look at page 121 of the Appropriation Accounts he will find a reference to seeds for the school gardens. This year there was actually no money disbursed for garden seeds. That is what Deputy Walsh is raising. Have you anything to say on that, Mr. O’Neill?—What happened was that the two years’ payments fell into one. It was purely technical.

Deputy Linehan.—Might I raise the question of policy on this matter of garden seeds?

Chairman.—No.

Deputy Linehan.—What I wished to ask was whether, in spending money on shrubs and plants for the garden, they have any idea of the effect of it?

Chairman.—It is not open to us to discuss the prudence of making provision for garden seeds. We may discuss whether the money has been disbursed, but we may not question Mr. O’Neill as to whether it is a wise policy. We cannot discuss the wisdom of it here.

VOTE 47—SECONDARY EDUCATION.

Mr. Seosamh O’Neill called and examined.

192. Chairman.—Under Sub-head D— Scholarships and Prizes for Irish—there is the following paragraph 34:

“The regulations governing the award of Secondary Schools scholarships to pupils from the Fíor Ghealtacht provide that a scholarship shall not be renewed for more than three years unless the pupil has passed the Intermediate Certification Examination to the satisfaction of the Department. I observed that a scholarship which was awarded in 1933 had been renewed for more than three years, and as it appeared that the holder had not passed the prescribed examination I have asked for an explanation.”

Perhaps you could explain that, Mr. O’Neill?—What actually happend was that this particular pupil went for the examination after two years, which is rather unusual. The usual thing is to wait for three years before going for the Intermediate Certificate examination. This pupil would have passed that examination if she had got one more mark. Her work was so satisfactory, in fact, that she would have passed the examination in the third year if she had gone for it, but the teacher was so satisfied with her work in the school that she promoted her to the Leaving Certificate class. She spent one year in the Leaving Certificate class, and as a result of our rules she could not go in for the examination at the end of that year. In other words, it was because the teacher promoted her that she was actually prevented from going for the examination the third year —an examination which she would have passed but for one mark the preceding year. The rule was that she should pass the examination as well as having satisfied us. This was a purely technical violation of the rules which would not have occurred at all but for the fact that the teacher promoted her at the end of the second year.

193. Deputy Corry.—Then she is entitled to go through?—Yes, we have got the sanction of the Department in the case now.

Deputy Corry.—I am glad there was that much human nature in them?— Well, it is all right now.

Chairman.—Yes, the approval of the Department of Finance has been secured.

Mr. Maher.—The authority of the Department has been obtained for the re newal of the scholarship for 1936-37 and 1937-38, so that as far as the reference in the report is concerned the matter is now in order.

194. Chairman.—Under Sub-head E— Grant towards Publication of Irish Text Books—there is this note:

“Provision is made under this Sub-head for the publication of books in Irish suitable for use by pupils of Secondary Schools, and payments to the authors are made in accordance with a general scheme approved by the Department of Finance. The charge to the Sub-head includes payments amounting to £250, being advances on account of the amount earned by an author, at the rate of £2 per 1,000 words, in respect of the completed portions of a work accepted for publication. The work in question is a glossary of words and phrases in use in a Gaeltacht area, and it appears that its completion will occupy a number of years. Having regard to the exceptional nature of the work, I considered that the proposal to accept it under the general scheme should have been submitted for the specific approval of the Department of Finance, and I have asked that the covering sanction of that Department may now be sought.”

Have you anything to tell us on that point, Mr. Maher?

Mr. Maher.—In examining the accounts relating to Sub-head E, we found that the material accepted in the alphabetical section of the letter C (i) took about two and a half years to prepare, and that the number of words up to that letter totalled approximately 347,000. Two points arise as a result—(1) whether the book, which would presumably run into a great many pages, could be regarded as an Irish text book properly chargeable under Sub-head E; and (2) whether in view of the total cost of the work, which on our estimate at the time this matter was raised, would be about £2,000. a more economical arrangement with the author could not have been made. We have asked that the matter be brought forward and we put in this note.

Mr. O’Neill.—We have gone to the Department of Finance with the proposal that we should transfer this item from the text book section to the general section in Irish. That would meet one of the difficulties on that particular point. Another difficulty is that the work is of such a kind that it is going to be so big that the Controller thinks we ought to get it at a lesser rate per 1,000 words. We have several difficulties as regards that. We made a contract with the author in the beginning, and we did not realise, nor did the author realise, that the work was going to be so big. Any prior experience we had of this work did not indicate that at all. The contract made was at the rate of £2 per 1,000 words. We made the contract with the author, and it would be rather difficult, I imagine, now that we have discovered that the work is going to be bigger than he thought, to change that contract.

195. Deputy Corry.—Bigger than he thought?—Yes. The point is that you start work of that sort; you are going into the Gaeltacht area, and you want to make a glossory of unusual words and phrases—things not found in a dictionary. You can hardly calculate what you will find there; it is very indefinite.

196. Chairman.—Has Mr. Almond any views with regard to this matter?

Mr. Almond.—I will explain to you how we came to hear of this case. It was only reported to us as a result of the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s query. There are two points involved here. Firstly, we were not satisfied that the book could properly be regarded as a secondary school text. We had some semi-official correspondence with the Department of Education in regard to it, and they proposed that it should be switched to general literature. That point can be got over by charging future payments to the Science and Art Vote, that is, commencing with the current year, and if the Comptroller and Auditor-General approves, we will let old payments remain on the Secondary Education Vote. I think that would be the simplest arrangement. The second point is that the Department of Education, in our view, should not have committed themselves to payment at the rate of £2 per 1,000 words for a work of this magnitude. The Accounting Officer has stated that they did not anticipate that the work would expand to such an extent, but it seems to us that they should have been aware, from the first samples received, to what extent the work would expand. We think they should not have committed themselves to such a high rate of payment. The matter is further involved, because they were applying the rates of payment which had been agreed for purely secondary school texts. The Department approached us in July, 1934, for approval for a scheme to cover works dealing with words and phrases, to which scheme this present work would have been appropriate. We approved of the scheme in principle, and in June, 1935, we approved of rates within a maximum of 50/- per 1,000 words, the maximum rate to be paid only for collections of a vocabulary nature of the highest quality. We asked for but did not receive detailed proposals regarding the rates to be paid for collections of idioms, phrases, etc., so that no rates had been fixed with our approval for a work of this kind. If we had known the size of this work we would have suggested some system of payment that would not have proved as expensive; possibly a lump sum payment for the whole work, or an annual payment spread over a definite number of years during which it was estimated the work would be completed. Our only hope at present is that we might possibly cut our losses. The Accounting Officer says he thinks they are committed to the rate that has been paid up to the present, but we propose to consider that point with the Department of Education to see if there is not some way out to reduce the enormous cost of this work.

197. Chairman.—Mr. O’Neill, the situation would now appear to be that this work cannot be properly charged to secondary schools publications, and if it is to be gone on with it must be switched to the Science and Art Vote. In those circumstances, would it be possible to open negotiations with the author for a new agreement, pointing out that the present agreement cannot go on, because there is no statutory authority for it and the possibility might arise of the whole arrangement coming to an end, but if the work should be placed on the Science and Art Vote it might be carried to completion? In those circumstances, do you think it possible to make a new agreement with the author which would approximate more closely to the ideas of the Department of Finance?—There will be very grave difficulties about that, for this reason. We have had an extraordinarily poor response to our proposals for the lists. We have got from all the areas only one response that is at all satisfactory. In other words, the actual terms we are proposing for the lists are not going to work out satisfactorily. Our difficulty about the Gaeltacht areas is that, particularly in the case of a small area like Kerry, these areas are dying out, and it is very important for us that we should gather up all the idioms that are still in existence there before it is too late. It is very important for the future. One might say that this is a charge for the future. That is the way we are looking at it at the moment. There are very few people competent to do that particular sort of thing. This particular man was a secondary school teacher, and he was probably making between £500 and £600 a year as a secondary school teacher. Then in order to do this work satisfactorily, he found he had to give up school teaching and go and live in that area. He had to give up £500 or £600 a year. We can hardly expect a man to go down there and do this extremely difficult work for us for a good deal less than he would be earning if he were in his ordinary work in Dublin. That is our difficulty.

198. You are satisfied that this particular work is a really valuable work?— We are quite satisfied about that. We went to the trouble of getting specimens of the work to examine it, and I was quite amazed at the quality of the actual work that is being done. It is a most desirable work, and we realise that it is a very difficult thing to get it done in the various areas. We have only a very small number of lists that are of any use at all. The difficulty of getting people who can do that work and are willing to do it is extremely great.

199. Chairman.—I assume we will take the view that this certainly ought to be transferred to the Science and Art Vote. I do not know whether I am speaking indiscreetly when I say to Mr. Almond that if the matter ever comes up in Dáil Eireann I am afraid he will have the majority of the Committee against him, and for Mr. O’Neill, in order to get this work completed at anything like a reasonable cost. But I think that is a matter we will have to leave to the Minister and Parliament to determine. We agree with the Comptroller and Auditor-General that this is not an appropriate publication for a secondary school text, and ought to go to the Science and Art Vote and stand on its own feet there. On the propriety of the rates of pay and so forth we are postponing discussion until it comes up in Dáil Eireann on the new Vote.

Deputy Corry.—It is indicated here that this will take a number of years to complete. I think it would be better if the work were divided up and if we sent three or four of these fellows into different parts of the country.

Chairman.—The difficulty is that it is not easy to find men capable of doing the work, and when you get a man capable of doing it he is a great treasure. Mr. O’Neill tells us it is a really valuable piece of work and is being very well done.

Deputy O Briain.—This matter refers to one of the Irish-speaking districts. It concerns a glossary of words and phrases from one of the Irish-speaking districts.

Chairman.—That is correct.

Deputy O Briain.—The work was started with the general sanction of the Department of Finance. There was a sanction for the scheme in principle, according to what we have heard from Mr. O’Neill.

Chairman.—I think, Deputy, that is over-stating the case.

Deputy O Briain.—Mr. Almond told us there was sanction given by the Department of Finance in principle to schemes of this kind, and the Department agreed that as high as 50/- per 1,000 words would be available.

Chairman.—But, unfortunately, the Department of Education started this work under the heading of grants towards the publication of Irish text books. They now agree with Mr. Almond that that was not the appropriate sub-head to do it under, and it is proposed to bring it under the appropriate sub-head hereafter and we will deal with it when it comes up under that sub-head in Dáil Eireann.

Deputy Walsh.—It is quite possible there was a technical mistake made by the Department of Education, but from the national standpoint the necessity of this work is apparent to everybody. There has been in the past few years a publication produced in England for the Oxford University—the Oxford Dictionary— which runs to about forty or fifty volumes and it must have cost huge sums of money. This is much of the same nature, I take it.

Chairman.—We have all the information we want from Mr. Almond, Mr. O’Neill and Mr. Maher. Perhaps Mr. O’Toole will make a note of it, and we will refer to the subject in our report.

200. Deputy O Briain.—I want to make a protest against this pin-pricking that is going on in the Department of Finance with regard to important national work of this kind. It is simply pin-pricking. Mr. Almond has referred to the Department of Finance cutting their losses. I do not understand the point there. This thing that is going on in the Department of Finance with regard to this and other matters that refer to questions in relation to the Irish language is simply pin-pricking. The Department of Education understand the importance of this matter and I do not know if there is anybody dealing with the subject in the Department of Finance who yet understands how important it is to the future of the nation.

Chairman.—Our chief function, and one of the chief functions of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, is to pinprick every Accounting Officer in the service.

Deputy O Briain.—But we do it reasonably.

Mr. Maher.—I should like to explain, in regard to the Deputy’s reference to the Department of Finance, that this matter was raised originally by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who brought the circumstances to the notice of the Department of Finance. He was guided by one or two principles in doing so. One was that originally the limit fixed by the Department of Finance for the publication of text books was £120, and when that was withdrawn some years ago the Auditor took the view that as the Department of Education had discretion now as to the amount which they might pay for similar text books, that that discretion would not be exercised to an unreasonable figure in excess of £120, and on the rough calculation which we made we found that the figure which this book would run to would be between £2,000 and £3,000. The Auditor naturally concluded that the Department of Education should, in the first instance, when they were aware of the magnitude of the work, have gone to the Department of Finance so that the responsibility for bringing it up and the pin-pricking the Deputy referred to rest primarily with the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

Deputy O Briain.—Then I will have to transfer my remarks to the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

Deputy Corry.—This refers to only one Irish-speaking district out of a number. I suggest that if we were to send one of these experts down to other parts of the country—to Ballinacoda, for instance— be might be able to get something more.

Chairman.—Well, I think, Deputy, that in connection with the question of linguistics we should walk warily in this Committee.

Deputy O Briain.—If there were a question of others offering to do the work would the Department of Education consider it?

Chairman.—I have no doubt of it. However, we will discuss this matter further when considering our reports.

Mr. Almond.—Perhaps I might be permitted to explain that we are not objecting to this work, as such, but we must have regard to the cost. According to the Department of Education, this work is going to cost up to £2,500. That, possibly, might be an under-estimate, and that is only for the preparation of it. On top of that we have the cost of printing and publication, and it may very well amount to £4,000 or £5,000 or £6,000 before it is finished. I understand that it will come out in about 20 volumes, and we cannot foresee that there will be any appreciable sale for the work at all when it us published— possibly not more than 100 sets of the volume will be sold. It would appear that there is going to be a big financial loss, and, naturally, we are anxious to cut the loss as much as possible. We are not objecting to the publication as such, but we do expect in this connection that only such publications will be selected as are likely to have a good sale afterwards.

201. Chairman.—Mr. Almond points out that this work may run to 20 volumes when it is finally published; but do you, Mr. O’Neill, give it as your opinion that a linguistic survey of the Dingle Peninsula, extending to 20 volumes, is commensurate with the importance of the work to be done there?

Mr. O’Neill.—Of course, it is very difficult for an outsider to realise the actual conditions, but I must say that I was astounded, when I was there, at the richness of the idioms and vocabulary, It seems to be a regular storehouse of Irish idiom and vocabulary, and, as I am afraid that it is a shrinking area in that regard, I think it is of the greatest importance that everything that can be got there, before it is too late, should be got as soon as possible.

202. Deputy Walsh.—I must say that I do not agree with the representative of the Department of Finance. I believe that this is a work that should be done. My view is that the work should be compiled, even if it were never published.

Deputy McMenamin.—Might I ask how long, in or about, would it take this man to do the work?

Mr. O’Neill.—We think he will have completed it, perhaps, by about 1940.

203. Deputy McMenamin.—How long is it since the work began?

Mr. O’Neill.—It is difficult to measure these things. There was part-time work and whole-time work to be taken into account. The person concerned has been giving whole-time work since last August, and he will have about three years of whole-time work on the project. Before that, however, he was working as a secondary teacher, and was giving part-time work to this project, which would amount to about three more years.

204. Deputy McMenamin.—I suppose travelling expenses would be included in this also?

Mr. O’Neill.—Yes. I want to make it clear that I think that this work is of the greatest importance Of course, looking at the matter purely from the point of view of a textbook, it would not be expected that the ordinary students or pupils would use it, but it would be a work of the greatest importance to have at the disposal of the secondary teachers and teachers in the higher-class primary schools, and so on.

205. Deputy Corry.—Would the ordinary pupils be expected to have a knowledge of it?

Deputy McMenamin.—No. I take it that it would be chiefly for reference purposes.

Mr. Maher.—I should like to say, as the discussion now is ranging around the desirability of this work and its merits or otherwise, that the Comptroller and Auditor-General takes the view that Dáil Eireann, in passing that Estimate, did not contemplate an expenditure amounting to this figure, and although there is no express provision for or against it, if the Dáil included a figure of £2,500 for a work of that kind, we would naturally pass it. So far as the Department of Finance and the Comptroller and Auditor-General are concerned, there is no objection whatever to the publication of this work, but the inference, from the provision in the Estimate, is that such expenditure has not been contemplated or provided for.

206. Deputy Smith.—What would be the view of the Department of Finance as to what they would regard as reasonable? Mr. Almond mentioned reasonable cost, but he carefully refrained from giving any information as to what his Department would regard as reasonable, when he was criticising this thing. Perhaps Mr. Almond could tell us what he or his Department would regard as reasonable?

Chairman.—Well, I think we must be careful not to ask Mr. Almond questions which he may not be reasonably asked to answer, because, after all, he is not an expert on book publishing.

Deputy Smith.—At the same time, Mr. Chairman, I am sure you appreciate the point that if, say, I am going to proceed to be critical about a matter as not being reasonable, I must have in my mind something which I would regard as more reasonable.

Chairman.—As I understood Mr. Almond, he did not think that a work of this kind should come properly under the sub-head of textbooks.

Mr. Almond.—The point is that this rate of £2 per thousand words would ordinarily apply to a different kind of text-book, a small book such as a text-book in mathematics, science, Greek, Latin, or any other ordinary type of school text-book, and obviously we would expect a reduction—I am not saying what it would be—for a very much larger work.

Chairman.—I do not know that I entirely agree with you there, Mr. Almond, because, after all, if you offered £2 a thousand notes to Billy Mayerl for writing a fox-trot, that is no reason for cutting down Beethoven, so to speak, for the Appassionata Sonata.

Deputy McMenamin.—I presume that this includes salary and travelling expenses, and so on for five years, and does anybody say that £500 a year is too much?

Deputy Corry.—It appears to me that this is going to be a text-book for the use of students, because that is what is actually here in the sub-head, and the students are the people that I have pity for because, before they are finished with it, they will be in the asylum, judging by the extent of the work.

Deputy Linehan.—Are we quite sure that we are putting this into the right Vote; because, judging by what we have heard already, we seem to be going into the question of national monuments.

207. Deputy Walsh.—In connection with sub-head A (4), in Vote 47, Bonus for Choirs and Orchestras, what are these grants?

Mr. O’Neill.—These are in respect of small grants which vary according to the size of the choir.

Chairman.—Well, then, gentlemen, if there are no other questions in connection with this Vote, we can pass on to Vote 48.

VOTE 48—TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION.

Mr. Seosamh O’Neill further examined.

208. Chairman.—In connection with this Vote, there is a note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General on Page xv, which reads as follows:—

Sub-head B—Annual Grants to Vocational Education Committees.

36. The Vocational Education (Special Additional Grants) Regulations, 1936, provide that where the local contribution paid by a rating authority to a Vocational Education Committee exceeds the minimum liability of such rating authority, special additional grants, within certain maxima, may be made under Section 53 of the Vocational Education Act, 1930, to such Committee if the Committee requires additional funds by reason of special expenditure properly incurred, or other special circumstances. I observed that the maximum additional grant was allocated in every case in which an excess contribution was received from the local authority, and I have addressed a communication to the Accounting Officer on the matter.

Mr. Maher.—Perhaps I should explain that the Act of 1930 empowered the Minister for Education to make grants to committees in aid of expenditure under annual schemes in accordance with regulations made by the Minister. Regulations which were made annually since 1932-33 limited the conditions under which these special additional grants could be made to cases where the Minister was satisfied that special circumstances existed or special expenditure had been incurred, and where, as stated in the Report, the local contribution exceeded the minimum liability of the local rating authority. The regulations provided that the grants should not exceed a fixed amount, but the maximum allowed was paid in all cases, which indicated that the special circumstances referred to in the regulations were not taken into account in determining the amounts payable. Since the date of the Report, the Accounting Officer has informed us, in reply to a request for information, that the retention of the clause in the regulations relating to special circumstances and special expenditure was due to oversight and that, from the 1st April, 1932, this clause was, in fact, no longer operative, and that the Department of Finance had approved. The additional grants, accordingly, had been determined by reference to the annual local contribution, but I understand that the matter will be rectified when drafting the regulations for 1938.

209. Chairman.—The special circumstances in the regulations had, in fact, been abrogated?—Yes.

210. And it was more or less a misprint that it remained in the regulations?

Mr. O’Neill.—No, it was due to a misapprehension, I should say, or to inadvertence. The grants were to be dependent on the amount of the additional grant given by the local authorities.

211. Chairman.—The difficulty is that the words “special circumstances” appear in the Order over the Minister’s seal. Does not that give statutory effect? Perhaps Mr. Almond will tell us whether or not any statutory steps are necessary in order to regularise the position?

Mr. Almond.—Well, as a matter of fact, this comes as a surprise to me. I am not quite clear as to what the actual position is, but so far as I am aware, those conditions should still have been satisfied before the grant was made. I was not aware that the reference to special circumstances was no longer operative. So far as I know, it still obtains, but I dare say that the Department of Education could make quite a reasonable case to show that special circumstances still existed, which might be acceptable to the Department of Finance.

Chairman.—I think, Mr. O’Neill, that the principle is important, that statutory words in the Statutory Order should not be ignored, even though they are there by inadvertence. Therefore, I think that the Committee would take the view that, while they would gladly endorse any steps that may be necessary to regularise any payments that have been made, they would like to see the necessary steps taken to have those words removed from the Order if they should not be there.

Deputy Corry.—Is not that part of the policy of dangling a carrot before the representatives of the ratepayers in order to induce them to put a greater burden on the ratepayers?

Chairman.—The general question does not arise here. The net question here is, whether if words appear by inadvertence in a Statutory Order they can be ignored or not. In this case I think that, in fact, they have been ignored on the grounds, as Mr. O’Neill has said, that they are only there by inadvertence.

212. Deputy Heron.—Is the position this: that it is assumed, because an additional grant is given, that special circumstances existed in all cases? Could we find out what the special circumstances were that were required in the case of the existing regulation?

Mr. O’Neill.—The special circumstances were a different thing altogether. As I have stated, they slipped in through inadvertence from the old grant. They had nothing whatever to do with the additional grant. The old grant was from the Department of Technical Instruction and was called an equipment grant. It had nothing to do with this grant. It was given if a school incurred special expenditure for equipment. The amount of the old grant was £2,000 or £3,000, and that, when spread over the schools, was a small thing. What happened in the present case was that an agreement was made between the Department of Finance and the Department of Education which did not contain any such clause. What it did contain was that these grants were to be dependent on a particular local authority raising a corresponding amount over and above the minimum rates. Unfortunately, in the draft the old clause got mixed up with the new, and by inadvertence these words got in.

Deputy Linehan.—Is it not a fact that, even though the words are in the Statutory Order, they have no effect, because the moneys that are being expended from a particular grant did not visualise special circumstances.

Chairman.—I am advised by the Comptroller and Auditor-General that no damage has been done; that if the Order is amended and these words taken out at the earliest possible moment, that no damage will be done. The Accounting Officer has told us that he intends to do that. Therefore, I think the matter can be regarded as closed.

213. Chairman.—I think that we may now pass to paragraph 37 in the Comptroller and Auditor-General’s Report: Sub-head D—Grants to Schools providing Continuation Education or Technical Instruction:—

“Payments from this sub-head relate to schools and classes which are not established or maintained by Vocational Education Committees, and the grants are determined by reference to regulations which existed prior to the passing of the Vocational Education Act, 1930. Section 109 of the Act provides for the payment of grants to such classes in accordance with regulations to be made under the Act, and I understand that the question of framing regulations under that section has been receiving consideration for some time.

Mr. Maher.—Since the report was written we have been informed that the framing of these regulations has been delayed by difficulties which have been met with in making suitable regulations for the continued payment of the grants. We understand that arrangements are being made to overcome these difficulties. Proposals are being submitted to the Department of Finance for approval, but I cannot say what stage the negotiations have reached at the moment.

214. Chairman.—Would Mr. Almond say, as regards the proposals that have been submitted to the Department of Finance, what is the position?

Mr. Almond.—They are under active examination at the moment. These are proposals preliminary to the making of regulations.

215. Chairman.—And we may expect that by the time the Committee meets next year the regulations will be in order.

Mr. Almond.—I expect so.

Sub-heads on the Vote taken.

216. Chairman.—On Sub-head D— Grants to Schools providing Continuation Education or Technical Instruction—there is this note: “There was a saving of £1,005, due to decreased numbers of teacher-students at Irish Colleges.” Is that just a normal fluctuation?

Mr. O’Neill.—The tendency is for them to decrease. They can only get these grants, one each teacher, for three years at the Irish Colleges, so that when a teacher has been paid on for three years in an Irish College he ceases to be eligible for a grant. Consequently, there would be a tendency for them to fall.

Deputy Linehan.—But he may remain on the staff?

Deputy O Briain.—No. He is not on the staff; he is a student.

VOTE 49—SCIENCE AND ART.

Mr. Seosamh O’Neill further examined.

217. Chairman.—The Comptroller and Auditor-General has the following note on this Vote—Grant-in-Aid Account— Publications in Irish:

“The amount charged in this account includes £59 3s. 0d. in respect of the translation of Irish County Histories, provision for the production of which is made in Sub-head B (3).”

At what stage are the Irish county histories?

Mr. O’Neill.—Four of them are finished, and of these one has actually been translated into Irish, two are in course of being translated into Irish, and they are going over the manuscript of the fourth.

218. Is it intended to publish these in English and Irish?—No, only in Irish.

219. Is there any special reason why we have histories prepared by an English-speaking author? Was there no Irishspeaking author who would have done the work in the Irish language?—He actually does speak Irish, but I think he has not sufficient Irish to do the original in Irish. There is the difficulty with regard to an Irish-speaking author that a combination of historical knowledge with Irish is rather rare.

220. Are the qualifications of the historian who undertook this work outstanding?—I am afraid I could not answer that. I know that he is greatly interested in history. He has come in and discussed this work with me, and shown great knowledge in the work to be done.

Deputy Smith.—I hope, Mr. O’Neill, you will hold to your opinion on that matter irrespective of any opinions that you may hear the Chairman express.

Chairman.—I wonder if no Irish speaker could be found with the historical qualifications of the historian who is doing this work?—As I have said, it is difficult to get a combination of two things.

221. Deputy Heron.—How long has the work been going on?—About four and a half years.

Deputy Walsh.—What is the nature of the work?—In England and Scotland they have got local histories done for the schools, the object being to get the school children interested in the county histories. This is an attempt to do what has been done in England and Scotland.

Chairman.—The only remarkable feature here is that, having got the histories written in English, we are now paying somebody else to translate them into Irish. Why we could not have got in the country some man who spoke and wrote Irish to do this work, God only knows.

Deputy O Briain.—Does the Chairman think that such a man would be available?

Chairman.—The Deputy himself would be found available, and would be much more competent to do this work than somebody who has no knowledge of Irish at all.

Deputy O Briain.—I would not. The number of people who would be found to combine all the necessary qualifications would, I imagine, be few and far between.

Chairman.—The writer of this history does not combine all the necessary qualifications because, apparently, he cannot write a word of Irish.

Deputy O Briain.—That is not so.

Deputy Heron.—Well, he is not doing it anyway.

Deputy O Briain.—He may not consider that his knowledge of Irish is good enough to undertake work of this kind. The man doing work of this kind in Irish would need to be a native speaker.

Deputy Smith.—The members of the Committee will appreciate that this is the Chairman’s annual outburst about Irish.

222. Chairman.—Do the members of the Committee think that the money appropriated for the preparation of these histories is best being spent if we get the histories written in English and then translated into Irish, or would the money be better spent if we got the histories written in Irish by an Irish speaker who had some qualifications for doing the work? It seems to me to be perfectly clear that it would have been better to get them written by an Irish speaker. Are they all going to be translated by the one hand, or will several translators have to be employed?

Mr. O’Neill.—I think we will have to get several translators. For instance, it would not do to get the history of Donegal done by a Kerry man, or a Donegal man to do Waterford. What actually happens is that while the translator is working on one work the editor is preparing another and his assistants are gathering material for him for the next. When the foundation work has been prepared for each of the workers he goes on to the next book.

223. Deputy Cole.—Would Mr. O’Neill tell us the county histories that have been prepared?—Monaghan, Carlow, Kerry and Roscommon. Roscommon was first undertaken.

Deputy Heron.—I agree with the Chairman that it seems to me to be a rather roundabout way of doing the work.

224. Deputy Cole.—It seems to me that three sets of translators will be required for a county history in the provinces of Munster, Connaught and Ulster.

Mr. O’Neill.—For the Irish translation, yes.

Deputy Heron.—At the present rate of progress it seems as if it will take about 26 years to do the work.

225. Chairman.—I take it that Sub-head B (1)—Publications in Irish—is the sub-head to which we propose to transfer the linguistic survey?

Deputy O Briain.—Yes.

Deputy Heron.—To what does Sub-head B (5)—Quaternary Research—refer? —To examination of the bog-strata. We got Danish experts to dig up specimens of the bogs of the quarternary or glacial period in order to find out what were the circumstances of life in Ireland at that particular time. They analysed the pol len they got in the bogs and the analysis of the pollen is very valuable from many points of view, particularly the archæological point of view. If you get a skeleton at a particular depth and analyse the pollen of the bog around it, you have an idea of the type of man who lived in Ireland during the quarternary period. Objects can also be dated by this means and you can learn not alone the circumstances in which an individual lived but the circumstances in which his tribe lived. Sometimes, you get the fauna as well as the flora.

Deputy Heron.—The “land under Ireland,” so to speak.

226. Chairman.—As regards Sub-head C (Aids to Arts and Crafts Exhibitions), are these aids available to county shows and exhibitions of that kind?—No, only for Cork. It gets a grant of £50.

227. If a local show has a section devoted to arts and crafts, it can apply for a grant?—This is a special grant to Cork and is really a hang-over from old times. Cork always had this grant and we continued it. We do not give a grant to other local shows.

VOTE 50—REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.

Mr. Seosamh O’Neill further examined.

228. Chairman.—There are no notes by the Comptroller and Auditor-General to this Vote. As regards Sub-head C (Places of Detention) I notice that the number of children placed in detention has gone up. Has this Sub-head exclusive reference to that abomination at Summerhill?

Deputy O Briain.—According to the figures given in Note B, they have gone down.

Chairman.—I am referring to Sub-head C.

Mr. O’Neill.—Industrial schools are also used as places of detention. The only place exclusively used as a place of detention is Summerhill.

229. Chairman.—Are we to take it that the number of children being sent to this place is increasing?—I do not think that that is so.

Deputy O Briain.—It went down by 300.

Chairman.—You are looking at “B” and I am looking at “C.”

230. Deputy O Briain.—There was an increase in the number of committals in the year in question, but there could be an increase in the number of committals for that year and a decrease in the number in detention. The figures would show that there has been a decrease in the number detained since 1935.

Mr. O’Neill.—There has been a notable decrease in the number of children at Summerhill during last year and this year. Generally, there are very few children in Summerhill. One Justice had more or less a tendency to send children to Summerhill.

231. Chairman.—Since the financial year we are considering, the numbers have declined again?—Very much.

Chairman.—It has been suggested that one of the reasons for the decline is that the place was so abominable no conscientious man could send a child there.

232. Deputy Heron.—What is the explanation of Sub-head E (Parental Moneys)?—Parents contribute a certain amount if they have sufficient means. These contributions are described as “parental moneys” and they go towards the upkeep of the children in the schools.

The witness withdrew.

The Committee adjourned at 1.10 p.m.