I move:

"In page 5, line 46, to delete the words ‘trade, craft or calling,' and substitute the words ‘industry, trade, craft or business.'"

To a certain extent, this is a drafting amendment. Its purpose is to keep the Bill, especially Section 78 (2), more in conformity with the measure that is being drafted at the behest of the Department of Industry and Commerce, namely, the Apprenticeship Bill.

I move:

"To insert after the word ‘pursuits,' lines 28/29, the words: ‘instruction in the Irish language and literature, national history, music, topography and folklore.'"

I am aware that the Minister has been considering this matter. The purpose of the amendment is to secure that instruction in the Irish language and literature, national history, music, topography and folklore—such work as is being done in the national schools higher grade and in the Irish classes at technical schools—will be continued. These schemes are not expressly excluded from the Bill, but I think that it would be advisable if they were expressly included. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say on the point. Perhaps he would accept the amendment.

I do not think that I can accept the amendment because, as the Deputy said, I do not think it is necessary and I object to singling out these things in a Bill that is essentially a vocational training Bill. I referred on Second Reading to a certain kind of propaganda that is being carried out in this respect. I am not, of course, objecting to that in itself but I explained on Second Reading what my attitude was, namely, that I think that the section as it stands makes the matter sufficiently clear; but if there is any doubt it can be made clearer. It is stated in the section that the expression "continuation education" means "education to continue and supplement education provided in elementary schools." Practically all the matters referred to in the amendment would come under that proviso. Furthermore, I dislike seeming to expand formally, if I may say so, though not actually, the scope of the Bill. In the demand put forward in public in support of this and similar amendments, it was stated that they wanted not merely a Vocational Bill but a Vocational Cultural Bill. It is because I think that the amendment to some extent aims at doing that and would therefore give a wrong idea of the general purpose of the Bill—though I am not sure what the word "cultural" exactly means —that I resist the amendment. It is true that on legal interpretation there may be some doubt about the phrase "and includes general and practical training" and as to whether it does not limit the previous words. If, however, there is any such danger, I will have it cleared up.

So far as Irish classes carried on at present are concerned, I gave my views pretty clearly on Second Reading. Where good work is being done, it is not proposed to interfere with it, but I hope that in a few years that will form portion of the course, and that young people will be expected to attend courses in other subjects than those of a purely cultural character. There is, however, no bar on adults attending, and there is no reason why they should not attend one course alone, such as that in Irish. I want to make it clear that where effective work is being done there is no intention to interfere. As I have said, I dislike formally to expand the scope of the Bill, as in my opinion it would raise far-reaching questions in educational control.

I do not know whether this would be the proper place to raise the matter, but I would like to know whether the Minister would consider the case of teachers of Irish in rather remote districts in which this Bill might not be in operation. I think that the Minister's phrase about formally expanding the Bill is somewhat ominous. There is another point to which I want to refer, and that is in reference to scholarships given in technical schools, to Irish Colleges, or to the Gaeltacht. Is there anything which says that they can be financed through the Bill? There are hundreds of scholarships given in Dublin to Irish Colleges and to the Gaeltacht for a fortnight in the summer. That is good national work, and I would like to know whether such scholarships would be excluded.

No; I think there is provision for scholarships.

Scholarships to the Gaeltacht or Irish Colleges?

I think they are included, but I will look into the matter.

Will the Minister alter the Bill, if necessary, to bring them in?

Yes; I will consider it, but in my opinion they are available under the Bill.

I move:

In sub-section 1, page 6, line 34, to delete the words "carried on in workshops or."

There was no occasion for the words which it is proposed to strike out and which indicated a distinction between boys and girls that is not justified. The phrase would seem to indicate that they should be treated differently. It is therefore proposed to strike out these words.

On behalf of Deputy T.J. O'Connell I move:

In sub-section 2, line 35, to delete the words "the principles of," and in line 36 to delete the words "applicable to such pursuits."

This amendment is put down for the purpose of eliciting some information. It is quite obvious that a Vocational Educational Bill must deal with science and art as applicable to industrial and commercial pursuits. What we are concerned with—and this has particular reference to Dublin and Cork, where we have excellent schools of music—is whether this section will affect these schools. We would like to have some information from the Minister on that point.

I propose to accept the principle of that amendment. It will need some redrafting as the Deputy will see if he reads the proposed amendment in with the section. Therefore I would ask him to withdraw it and I will reintroduce it properly drafted. So far as the effect of the words is concerned, if I am not advised that the amendment saves these two schools I will be prepared to legislate for them separately.

The effect of this section will be to destroy the distincttive existence of one very important educational body in the country— the North Wicklow Joint Technical Instruction Committee. I have received representations in regard to the proposal and in regard to the effect of the Bill on the Committee. It is pointed out that "only three years ago the Government approved of this area with the consent of the local public bodies and it is now the general wish that a protest should be made against the abolition of the Committee under the new Bill. During the past three years the popularity of the technical instruction schemes in this area has been marked by increased enrolment, examination successes and attendance grants. Under the administration of a large county scheme it will not be possible to concentrate on the development of this area and most of the past work would be upset and undone. Bray Urban District with its rapidly increasing population is as important as many of the areas given in the first schedule and the people of Bray would feel obliged if you propose that it with the adjoining No. 2 Rathdown Rural area would be added to the list of towns already given in the above schedule. The population of Bray is now over 9,000 and of the whole of North Wicklow area is approximately 15,000. If the Minister would be so kind as to agree to this suggestion it would be necessary to add the words "Joint Urban and Rural" to the second line of Section 6 No. 4; the first line of (b) Section 7."

I think that proposal deserves a good deal of consideration in view of the special circumstances that exist in Bray. The present scheme has worked extremely well. There is real enthusiasm in that town for technical education and the people who are working the scheme of the local committee are extremely keen on making the classes successful. They have been, I think, particularly successful up to the present. Hardly any town can show better results or better attendances and, as Bray is a town with no particular industry and with a large population who will mostly have to distribute themselves over the rest of the country, it would be important, I think, that the existing system should not be abolished without very careful consideration. I may be springing the matter on the Minister. I do not know if he has heard anything about it before, and consequently I would not ask him, if that were the case, to give a decision now. I do not think that he will turn down the proposal without some little consideration, because it happens that this matter is taken very seriously by the local committee, which, in my opinion and to my own knowledge, is one of the best committees of the kind in Ireland.

There is actually no amendment before me, but in answer to Deputy Moore I might point out that if you split County Wicklow, as suggested, into two areas under the new system, you will have two uneconomic areas. It is absolutely necessary to have something like economic areas as far as possible to work the scheme. There are other counties in which some of the best worked schemes, so far as counties are concerned, are carried on, and which can claim to be split up with much more force than Wicklow. Take County Cork, for instance, where there is a remarkably well-worked scheme. The actual size of the county, which was adduced by Deputy Moore as an argument at the opening of his statement, would not in itself be an argument there. If what he urges were to be granted to Bray, there would be many other schemes in the country where the local town council might very well claim to take in a certain amount of the county area. In fact I have heard proposals of that kind put before me. As a matter of fact I had a proposal of that kind put before me yesterday. I think on the whole the scheme in the Bill is a very different scheme from that which has been suggested by the proposed amendment. Though I am quite willing to give every consideration to the point of view put forward by Bray Technical Committee, I cannot at the present moment hold out any hope that I will be able to meet it. The suggestion that because there are no industries in Bray it should get a special scheme of technical instruction does not seem quite a good argument.

If you had a number of specific industries in Bray it would be an excellent case, it seems to me, for starting a separate scheme. The argument that Deputy Moore urged rather tells the other way. However, between now and the Report Stage, I shall give the matter consideration, and if I think there is a case made out I will reconsider the matter, but at the moment at any rate I can only say that I will consider the suggestion.

I am very much obliged to the Minister for his promise, but with regard to the argument I put forward, I have only got this representation to-day. What I have in mind is you have there a town that has a very poor hinterland from the point of view of agriculture. It has no industry of any kind. Its technical education is more important to the people there than to most places. They have nothing else to rely upon. If they cannot get technical training they have no outlook in the world.

I move amendment 5:

In sub-section (1), page 7, line 41, to delete the word "eight" and substitute the word "five."

This amendment and the following three amendments are really provisional. They look forward to amendment 19 to Section 44. Deputies who were here on the Second Reading will remember that I expressed a certain amount of doubt as to whether the actual provisions that stand in the Bill were really the best way of achieving the double object I had in mind, a satisfactory committee, on the one hand, and control of the rates remaining with the local rating authority on the other hand. I have since then had representations from different parts of the country objecting to the limitation on the choice of the council as to the type of member they should put forward. I had that from technical committees; I had it also from some urban districts, and I think these four amendments, together with amendment 19 to Section 44, achieved much more definitely the purpose I had in mind when I put forward the original proposals. The suggestion now is that we reduce the number that must be members of the electing body of the county council from 8 to 5. In the case of the urban districts that form part of the county, as they are not for the purpose of this Bill rating authorities, full opportunity is given as to the members they will elect. In connection with the rate to be struck, the proposal roughly is this: The Committee as a whole consider the scheme; they consider the cost of the scheme, how much they will require from the local rate and the corresponding grant, as I explained, from the Government. They put up that to a special committee, called the estimates committee consisting of members of the committee who are members of the county council. That estimates committee will have power not to reduce the rate but they will have power to refuse to increase the rate. I think the new proposal meets the double object I have in view much more definitely than the original proposal.

I think that the Minister's combined amendments are good because they solve two problems and enable many desirable persons who are not members of the urban council to get on the committees now by co-option.

I move amendment 8:—

In sub-section (3), (b) (i), pages 7 and 8, to delete all words from the word "of" in line 59 of page 7 to the word "council" in lines 1 and 2 of page 8 and substitute the following words "each of whom may at the discretion of such council be a person who is or a person who is not a member of such council," and in paragraph (b) (ii), page 8, line 5 to delete the words "shall be a person who is" and substitute the words "in every case may at the discretion of such council be a person who is or a person who is not."

I have already explained this amendment. I do not like to call it a consequential amendment. It is one of the amendments that look forward to amendment 19 and is preparatory to it.

I move amendment 9:—

In sub-section (4), line 11, page 8, to insert before the word "Associations" the words "Associations interested in cultural education or" and to insert before the word "bodies" in line 15 the words "Associations or."

Of course, I know the Minister will come back with a demand for a definition of the word "cultural," but I think he knows what I have in mind.

There is no reason why the county council should not consult anybody that they wish to, but I do not know, I must say, what "cultural education" is. I confess great ignorance. At one time it was defined as any education that was useless. I presume that was not meant.

Nor is it the Minister's definition, I presume.

That is not my definition, but I have a doubt as to what it means and I do not know why cultural associations should be consulted more than any other associations connected with education. In fact, I do not know what body might not claim to be consulted under this amendment. There is hardly a body in the country that does not profess at all events to be interested in education. Possibly the interest does not always display itself very practically, but I can understand associations of primary teachers, secondary teachers, technical teachers, managers, farmers' unions, trade unions—they are consulted definitely in connection with industry—possibly football clubs and the Gaelic League. There is hardly an association that would not come in. I think it is too vague and I think that this is really meant as a pointer to the county councils. There is a very definite indication there that they should pay attention to persons interested in education, and I think that sufficiently meets the requirements of the case.

I would like to ask the Minister whether he feels he must insist on sub-section (6) of Section 18. It seems to me that it rather tends to remove initiative altogether from these vocational committees. I do not anticipate any such occurrence under the present Minister, but it gives the Minister power to order the whole business of every meeting of every vocational committee. I do not think that any Minister would like to take on that as part of his work, but I suggest that he should consider whether he would require that sub-section in that form.

Would the Deputy have any objection to the Minister making regulations of a general character?

No.

I will re-draft the section to secure that. As it stands it is undoubtedly open to the Deputy's objection, especially where the word "business" is concerned.

Quite.

It does seem to me that in any particular meeting I could indicate the whole of the business. I will undertake to redraft the section to see that the regulations are of a purely general character.

Would the Minister give us some idea of what general regulations he has in mind?

I could not.

I move amendment 10. The number of members of the principal committee is limited under Section 8, but there is no limitation as regards sub-committees. It is desirable, of course, that the sub-committees, like the main committee, should not be too large and, in my view, the section could be amended so as to ensure that the number of members of the sub-committee should not be greater than the number of the main committee. I think the Minister will appreciate that.

I quite agree with the Deputy. I think of the two amendments I would prefer No. 11. It secures the Deputy's desire in a more definite fashion and I would propose to accept the principle of No. 11 and re-draft it. Whether there is any question as to the number 12 or 14, I do not mind.

It seems to me that the number fourteen for an ordinary sub-committee is entirely too big. What you want is a much smaller committee. I would like to mention another point. It might be desirable to put it to the Minister for consideration that there should be some representative of the local body on every sub-committee to keep the committee in touch with the main body. I think we ought not to do anything which would tend to make these sub-committees too large. There is a suggestion of fourteen.

It is not to exceed fourteen. I do not mind if it is seven.

I think twelve ought to be the limit. Of course there is always the danger of having it too small because of the question of absentees, and not sufficient to make a quorum. Make it twelve, then.

I would put it to the Minister that there should be at least three members of the vocational committee on every sub-committee.

That is a matter for the vocational committee. They can put the lot of them on if they like.

I think you ought to put it in the section.

I agree with Deputy Thrift that you might insist on having one member there.

Certainly.

[An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.]

There is no amendment on Section 22, but I would like to mention a point. The point is that a sub-committee may be appointed which would never meet more than five times, and it seems a bit hard to exclude members of that committee who have attended every meeting from getting the expenses of attendance at the actual meetings which take place. I would ask the Minister to consider whether that point does not require attention.

That point certainly requires attention. I should say it is quite possible. It might be a very desirable matter to appoint, not merely local, sub-committees that would meet fairly frequently, or as often as the parent body, but a sub-committee to deal with a special matter, which may do their work at three meetings. I think that case requires to be considered.

That is the case I have in mind.

I move amendment 12, to delete sub-section (5) of Section 23. It is to delete the reference to the Appointments Commissioners. I think appointments should be made by the Vocational Committee, subject to the approval of the Minister.

I do not know whether the Deputy is aware that he is proposing really to repeal a portion of the Act of 1926. In that Act it is definitely provided that the chief executive officers of local authorities shall be appointed by the Appointments Commissioners, through the machinery of that Act. What the Deputy's proposal, therefore, amounts to is to repeal the Local Appointments Act so far as this particular office is concerned. A committee of the Dáil sat recently on that particular matter. They did not recommend any curtailment of the powers of the Local Appointments Commissioners. In fact, they suggested an increase of these powers in so far as this is concerned. I also suggest that actually deleting the section would not effect the Deputy's purpose because this is a local authority according to the definition section of the Act of 1926.

There is just one point in connection with this section. I think it would be a good thing, even though a dismissal could only take place with the approval of the Minister, that some regulations should be laid down for the security of those who are engaged—that a certain form of procedure must be gone through in any case of dismissal. That might be covered by regulations rather than appear in the Act. I think, for instance, that it should not be possible that a dismissal could take place without due notice or that the person who is threatened with dismissal should not be given an opportunity of defending himself. It would be possible under the strict letter of sub-section (4) at any meeting of the council without any notice whatever—it may be a snap meeting—to dismiss any particular servant or officer and the only safeguard is this one "with the approval of the Minister." I grant it is very good.

What the Deputy really means is that, without a rather elaborate procedure, for instance, a hall porter could not be dismissed. That is really what is meant by this particular sub-section.

A definition of the word "servant."

The word "officer" occurs. Take the ordinary officer or even the ordinary servant. After all, they have a certain tenure of office. They must get notice. They have their remedy if they do not. The notice varies in the different cases. Take the ordinary person who is employed subject to a month's notice. I do not know on what terms a hall porter or a person of that type may be employed. What the Deputy suggests is really to give him longer than the ordinary month's notice. It would amount in practice to that. What is aimed at in this section is not to give rights of that particular kind. The ordinary officer has a long tenure and he has his remedy undoubtedly. I cannot see how he could be effectively dismissed without the thing being fully ventilated.

Is the Minister contemplating that there might be three monthly meetings of the committee?

Possibly, something of the kind.

Does the Minister think that the staff are sufficiently safeguarded?

I think so, but I will look further into the matter if the Deputy wishes.

I move amendment 13:—

In sub-section (2) to delete the figures "71" in lines 14 and 15, and to delete lines 17 and 22 inclusive.

This amendment deals with the attestation clause which was put into the 1925 Act. I think the Minister, or anybody else, will admit that the time has now come when, in the interests of education and of all parties concerned, it would be well to remove that clause, and from this Bill in particular. At the time it was introduced political feelings were running very high. The imaginings of Ministers at the time about certain individuals who were employed by technical committees forced them to introduce that clause into the 1925 Act. Its only effect was to remove certain individuals from appointments they held under technical committees. That was the effect of it, though these people were doing very good work for the committees employing them. I believe that if this section is insisted upon by the Minister it will have a bampering effect so far as the operations of this Bill are concerned. It certainly will be strongly objected to by a number of people likely to be employed under the Bill. If we thought that any good would accrue from the inclusion of it in the Bill we would accept it. I think, however, it will be generally agreed that too stringent rules or anything calculated to have a hampering effect, particularly in the case of people employed on educational work, is not good at the present day. There is a good deal of talk from time to time about the value of cultural education. If, for instance, teachers are appointed under this Bill and are known, say, to be enthusiastic in language circles or in any other sphere in connection with education, is not their enthusiasm going to be sapped to a certain extent by having to subscribe to a political test of this kind, because it is nothing more than that?

If the Minister wants proof of the sincerity of teachers in doing their work then let him include a test different from this one, a test, say, to satisfy the committee and the Minister as to the value of the work they do. In the absence of a test such as this, if teachers do not give satisfaction the remedy for dealing with them is in the hands of the Minister because he can dismiss them. I believe that if this section were deleted it would be a good thing, and would be regarded as a generous gesture from the Minister. I hope the Minister now realises that the introduction of this test in the 1925 Act did harm in educational circles from the very beginning. I believe, if he insists on its inclusion in this Bill, that it will continue to do harm.

I desire to support this amendment. I would just like to say that last year's technical congress, which was very largely attended, passed a resolution by a majority calling for the removal of this test.

I also desire to support the amendment. The inclusion of the test in this Bill will, I think, be regarded as an irritant. I submit that it is quite unnecessary. Goodness knows the powers of the Minister under this Bill to remove a person from office are wide enough without this. In removing a person from office, I do not think the Minister need even assign a cause.

Yes.

In one or two sections of the Bill to which we shall come later, the Minister's powers seem to be absolute. I think the Minister might very well delete the figures "71" from this section.

I do not agree that my powers are absolute in practice—whatever they are—under the Bill. I should not like to take up the position that I could dismiss a person merely because he held certain views. What is asked to be done is to segregate this particular class of local officers from every other class of local officers to which the Act of 1925 applies. Either the thing should be attacked wholesale or not at all.

Hear, hear.

I object to its being attacked piecemeal here. The resolution is a reasonable one. They are only asked to declare allegiance to the Irish Free State and to its Constitution as by law established. The change proposed is to make the declaration a little more acceptable to their intelligence if not to their feelings, because the actual declaration as it stands is to a certain extent not quite full of sense inasmuch as it requires the performance of duties to be done to the satisfaction not of the Minister for Education but the Minister for Local Government. That is the Act as it was passed. The only change I propose to make in the existing law is to substitute for the Minister for Local Government and Public Health the Minister for Education as the person who has to be satisfied with regard to the performance of duties. That is much easier now when everybody more or less accepts the Free State than it was at the time when this resolution was introduced. I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment.

If I understand the section rightly it means the continuation of the existing law under which the local bodies have to bear the whole responsibility for the pensions of the officers. I have always considered that unfair. The number of officers under this Bill will be considerably increased, and there will be a corresponding increase in the amount that will have to be paid by the local authorities, and which will become unreasonable. In these circumstances I hope the Minister will see his way to reconsider the position and make an arrangement whereby the State will bear a share of the responsibility now borne by the local authorities, who at present have to shoulder too much.

This is a point that has been brought before me continuously under the existing law. In practice, what it amounts to is this: whole-time technical teachers get pensions under the Act of 1925, which is referred to here. It is simply proposed in this Bill to continue the existing provisions. Strong representations were made to me on more than one occasion in the past couple of years that that was very unfair, because in practice it amounted to this, as things worked out, that if it were necessary to meet a pension there was no limit to the amount of rate that the local authority might raise for technical education purposes. Consequently, it worked out that in the case of pensions and gratuities the total burden under the existing law, namely, the Local Government Act, 1925, was borne by the local authority. Deputy Davis asks that I should change that; that, in fact, I should relieve the local authority of the burden that actually by the present law is theirs. The liability at the moment is not much, but he asks that I should relieve them of the liability that there is on them to meet the charges for pensions of those who are at present in office, who have not gone out on pension, but who are whole-time teachers entitled to pension. I have often pointed out that in this country the State bears a very disproportionate charge for the cost of education. Against that it was urged on me that if the State contributed to the salaries it ought to contribute to the pensions. I will admit that the representations made to me were very strong, and I am prepared to reconsider between now and the Report Stage whether it could not be possible in the case of those in future going out on pension for the State to refund to the local rating authority some portion of the cost of the pensions.

It seems to me that this is connected with the whole question of State grants to these vocational committees. Deputy Corish has an amendment to Section 51 which would authorise the use of some of the State grant for the general purposes and general costs of the vocational committees. I do not say that would be the best way in which to proceed, but it seems to me that the two things are connected. I dare say we shall hear from the Minister later on as to the particular way in which the State grant is to be used. From the point of view of the security of the person who gets the pension, I assume it is safe to take it for granted that, inasmuch as the pension really comes under the same category as a local officer's pension, precisely the same system will be applied in the calculation of gratuities and pensions of the officers of the vocational committees as is applied to local officers in accordance with the instructions and letter issued by the Minister for Local Government.

As regards the last point, the actual grant of the pension is not in my hands, but in the hands of the Minister for Local Government. As regards the other point, in the law as it stands, and in the law as it is supposed to be continued by this Bill, the liability for pensions is on the parent body—in the case of a county, the county council, and in the case of a borough, the county borough council. It would not be possible under the Bill as it stands for any deduction to be made from the rate paid over by the parent body to the committee. The rate settled must be paid over without deduction. Therefore, I do not see how we can have provision for pensions by the rating authority on the one hand, as we have at present, under the Act of 1925 with regard to local officials, and pensions by the committee on the other hand. Therefore, where the question of pensions arise, I am ready to consider between now and the Report Stage the bringing in of an amendment proposing that the State will refund a certain proportion of the pensions charged to the local authority. I think that meets the case.

One is glad to hear that, because it always struck me that the section in the Act of 1925 was an unfair one. As the Minister will agree, 75 per cent. of the salary of an official at present is paid by the State, and 25 per cent. by the local authority. When it comes to the question of a pension, the whole of the pension falls on the local authority; the State does not contribute any portion of it. I always thought that was an injustice, and I am glad to hear from the Minister that, while he will not go as far as repealing the section of the 1925 Act, he will consider whether it cannot be met in some way out of State funds.

Deputy Good did bring that matter before me on several occasions, and I think I answered him that I was quite ready to level up by suggesting that the State would not pay 75 per cent. He did not joyfully accept that proposition. I certainly am not going to promise that the State will bear 75 per cent., but I think we will get some accommodation between ourselves and the local authorities. I certainly do not wish that the total cost of matters of this kind should be borne by the local authorities, and I think I will relieve them to some extent of the responsibility that actually is there under the present law.

Of all the pensions?

By no means.

I hope the Minister will consider that, because it means a good deal to the people in the country.

I move amendment 14:

In line 31, to delete the words "either upon or without any," and substitute therefor the words "upon a".

We have been considering sub-section (4) of Section 23 with regard to the Minister's powers, which he says are not absolute, and that, taken in conjunction with Section 44 of the Local Government Act, 1925, gives plenty of scope for removing from office people who are unfit. Any officer removed from office cannot get compensation if removed for misconduct or incapacity. Under this section, as it stands, the Minister may do so if he thinks fit; the unfitness need not even be proved. "Unfitness" is a very difficult term to define. It is nearly as difficult as the word "cultural" which the Minister was discussing a while ago. It would be very hard to define "unfitness." No proof is required. The Minister just considers him unfit. I do not know that the section could not be deleted altogether, but, at any rate, I think that Deputies from all sides of the House will support this amendment that the Minister should not act without having some suggestion or complaint from the vocational education authority.

I think the Minister should be empowered to act without getting a complaint from the local vocational authority, because he may be dissatisfied with the authority. But it may meet the Deputy's point, to some extent, if we bring Section 26 that we are now discussing into touch with Section 103, which lays down the condition of the inquiry, and that the Minister should not act in this apparently arbitrary fashion without inquiry of the kind set out under Section 103; that he should have power to act if the conduct of the officer was reported as very bad, even though the Committee might be prepared to stand over the officer.

This section will be brought into line with Section 103?

Yes. I shall get the whole thing redrafted.

I move amendment 15:—

In sub-section (1), line 43, to insert after the word "land" the words "or buildings."

This really is not necessary.

It was put down to elicit information.

It is not necessary. The Interpretation Act, 1923, Section 1 (1) (e) lays down that "lands" includes "buildings."

I suggest that there should be some time limit to the representations. Supposing the Committee had gone on with the consideration of a scheme and nearly got it completed and then representations were put in, it might lead to great waste of time on the part of the Committee.

If representations are late that is a good reason for not considering them.

The section says that the Committee shall consider them.

I do not think any one would hold them bound.

Paragraph (c) says that the vocational education committee may assist in maintaining schools in its area in which continuation education is provided. I should like to know whether the vocational education committee will have any control, whether regulations regarding the qualifications of teachers, salaries and so on will apply to such school. What control will they have?

That is for them to decide. The Committee is going to make a bargain with the school, and it is for the Committee to make that bargain.

The Minister will be making general regulations. Will they apply in such a case?

This is a question of what control can be exercised by the Committee over the schools, and that is a matter for discussion between the committee, the owners and the managers of the schools.

With regard to paragraph (c) of the section will the Minister have control over that assistance? Will it be subject to his consent?

Yes, all schemes must be submitted to the Minister.

With regard to paragraph (c), "contribute to expenses incurred by persons resident in its area in obtaining technical education at schools or courses outside such area," it seems to me not necessary to put in the words "outside such area." I think that might be left to the discretion of the committee.

I think the point raised by Deputy Thrift is met by the fact that the committee can provide scholarships even for travelling and matters of that kind for the poorer people. However, I shall consider the matter. I think the point is met, but I will consider it.

Is the Minister going to strike out these words, because I think it is a very useful provision?

No. The Deputy only wants to make it a little wider.

I move amendment 16:—

In line 18, after the word "shall" to insert the words "subject to the right of a vocational committee to appeal to the High Court."

Here again the Minister is assuming too much power, and I think that the amendment I propose is necessary.

Why the Deputy should bring in the High Court in a matter of this kind seems to me most extraordinary. Why he did not bring in the Supreme Court and the Privy Council is not clear to me. This is a most extraordinary example of smashing the fly on the wheel. There may, at one time or another, be a different grant for technical education than for vocational education. The question is: does a certain subject come into one or the other? But to suggest that it should be cause of action before the High Court is lifting the matter too much into the catalogue of a cause celebre. The amendment is, I suggest, a bit out of proportion. When I saw the amendment I was wondering whether there was not something else supposed to be behind the section. It is merely a question of what category a certain thing should be put into, and to suggest that the High Court should decide that does not seem reasonable.

I moved the amendment; it does not stand in my name, and I suppose I can now withdraw it.

It does stand in the Deputy's name and he can withdraw it.

Would the Minister say why this should be confined to borough vocational areas?

Because there is no chance of its being done anywhere else.

On behalf of Deputy Jordan, I move:—

In sub-section (2), (a), page 18, lines 17 and 18, to delete the words "two pence" and substitute the words "one penny three-farthings."

The effect of this amendment, if accepted by the Minister, will be that the minimum contribution from a county council, which is now 2d. in the £, would be reduced to 1¾d. The reasons for the amendment were to a large extent dealt with on the Second Reading. It is a question of the general financial provisions of the Bill and the burden it will place on local authorities. In existing circumstances the burdens which a good many local authorities bear with regard to technical education is considerably less than 2d. in the £. In some cases I think it is as low as 1d., and it is considered that a jump from 1d. to 2d. would be excessive, particularly as the local authority has no option with regard to the amount. The amount in the Act will be the minimum amount that a local authority must provide. I would be very pleased if the Minister would accept the amendment.

I have considered the matter. The Parliamentary Secretary brought it before me, and I have considered the whole finances of the system since then, especially in county systems, and I find that a 1¾d. could work reasonably satisfactorily, but it certainly cannot go below that amount. If I accept the principle of the amendment I would like to have it redrafted, because there are some areas for which I could not accept it. Taking the country as a whole, I think it could be accepted in county areas without any serious damage, but there are one or two areas in which I will have to make special provision.

Does the Minister mean that there will be discrimination?

Not discrimination, but counties that already raise 2d. will not be allowed to go back to 1¾d.

I understand there are certain areas to which this amendment would not apply for the reason stated by the Minister, that the minimum amount already collected exceeds 1¾d., and for that reason it is quite obvious that the amendment in its present form would not be suitable. I also realise that the amendment might not do what the Minister wishes.

I accept the principle.

I am willing to withdraw the amendment.

I move:

In sub-section (1) to delete in line 49 the word "and" and to insert at the end of the sub-section the following:—

"

and

(c) the amount (in no case less than the minimum annual liability nor more than the maximum annual liability of the rating authority in respect of the then next ensuing local financial year), of the annual local contribution in respect of such next ensuing local financial year which will be required for the purposes of such scheme."

This is simply carrying out the main amendment I have to the Bill in securing control, and I think Deputy Jordan's amendment simply aims at the same thing, but I prefer my own amendment, which is more elaborate.

It has been stated that the date the 1st December would cause administrative difficulties and that January 31st would be a better date. I would like to know the Minister's opinion. That has been stated by technical committees.

There are difficulties, but a later date would make it impossible to make the demand in time. Even for the preparation of our estimates it would be impossible. I have carefully considered the point raised by the Deputy. I understand the administrative difficulties quite well, but really we have no choice in the matter.

I move:—

Before Section 44 to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) For the purpose of this section the members of a vocational education committee who—

(a) in the case of a vocational education committee for a borough vocational education area or an urban district vocational education area, are members of the council of the county borough or the urban district which is such borough vocational education area or urban district vocational education area (as the case may be), and

(b) in the case of a vocational education committee for a county vocational education area, are members of the council of the county which is or includes such county vocational education area and are elected by such council,

shall together constitute a special sub-committee (in this section referred to as the estimates sub-committee) of such vocational education committee.

(2) Where the annual scheme prepared by a vocational education committee in respect of any local financial year (other than the local financial year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1931) provides for an annual local contribution in respect of such local financial year of an amount greater than the annual local contribution demanded by such committee in respect of the preceding local financial year, such scheme shall, before being submitted to the Minister under the foregoing section, be first submitted to the estimates sub-committee of such committee and in such case it shall be the duty of the chief executive officer of such committee to summon a meeting of such estimates sub-committee for a convenient day and hour (not being more than seven days after the date of the meeting at which such scheme was prepared) for the consideration of such scheme.

(3) If at a meeting of an estimates sub-committee of a vocational education committee held in pursuance of the foregoing sub-section such sub-committee by resolution, passed by a majority of the members thereof present and voting, request such vocational educational committee to reduce the amount of the annual local contribution mentioned in the scheme submitted to it to a specified amount not lower than the annual local contribution demanded in respect of the then current local financial year, such committee shall amend such scheme in accordance with such request and make such other amendments therein as may appear to them to be necessary.

I have already explained this amendment.

I move:

In sub-section (1), to delete in lines 12, 13, 14, the words "nor more than the maximum annual liability" and to insert at the end of the sub-section the following words "nor more than whichever of the two following amounts is the greater, that is to say, the amount of the annual local contribution mentioned in such scheme and the amount of the annual local contribution (if any) in respect of the preceding local financial year."

There is a misprint in the amendment. The figure 14 should not be there. The amendment is merely carrying out the same general purpose.

On Section 49 should it not be made clear that at any rate there is a possibility that any grant made by a local authority could be supplemented by a Government grant for important work? I do not think it is clear and it seems to me if a committee is going to undertake very important work it will probably be only able to do it if it gets special help from the Government.

I intended to raise the same point. It is very hard to induce local authorities to take any such steps, and it would be some inducement to them if the Government gave a pro rata grant.

I regard the matter as it stands as the expression of a pious hope rather than anything else, I am sorry to say. So far as ordinary purposes are concerned, I have already explained that the expenses will be met by way of loans which will be secured by the income of the committee, which income will be contributed to by the local rate, and, as I explained on the Second Reading, to a greater extent by the Government. Although there is no provision in the Bill, if an event of the kind occurs, an ordinary Appropriation Bill might be able to meet the case. I do not care for the provisions suggested.

Amendment 21 is out of order.

On what grounds?

It proposes a charge.

I suppose for that reason one will not be allowed to comment on it?

The Deputy can comment on the section.

Of course the real purpose was to elicit information from the Minister as to the general policy in regard to the continuation of payment of a sum at least equivalent to the total sums now paid from Government sources, and the payment of additional sums, and also the State contribution in aid of the purchase of sites, referred to in Section 49, or for building schemes. Would the Minister make some statement as to the general policy under this head?

I have done so already.

The Minister said something about £ for £. We do not know exactly where it comes in.

There are already certain contributions made to local schemes by the State and by the local authorities. It is not proposed to diminish in any way the State contribution there, even though the contribution is, I think, unfair to the State. So far as future developments are concerned, I indicated that if a number of years were taken the idea is that the local authority's contribution and the State contribution would equal each other on the whole, so that there will be, on the whole, a £ for £ contribution. There are a couple of schemes that may require something more than that from their very nature. The extra cost to the State at the opening might be £3,000 and the full development £10,000. These are schemes which, from their very nature, no matter how high a rate is struck, could not work. But the ordinary provision will be £ for £. That may not be necessary for the first year, but on the whole I should say—taking an average of years— the rates will subscribe the same as the Government. We might be able to take, say, a three-halfpenny rate as a starting point and regard anything over that as a contribution from the Government. As regards buildings and sites, all that may be met by means of loans raised by the committee on the security of the yearly income of the fund to which both the State and the local authority contribute, and no matter even if we continue with £ for £ for future development, it will always mean that into that fund more will be paid by the State in any year—in 1933, 1940 or 1950—than will actually be paid by the local authority.

The following amendment stood in the name of Deputy Corish:

To insert in line 32, after the word "schemes" the words "including expenditure and superannuation allowances to teachers and officers and on temporary variable increases or additions to the salaries of teachers and officers expressed to be granted to meet the increased cost of living."

I have dealt with this subject already.

Would Deputy Corish's right to put this amendment down for the Report Stage be preserved?

I dealt with the matter already in connection with an earlier section, which provides for pensions.

I move, on behalf of Deputy O'Connell, that sub-section (1) be deleted. This amendment has also been put down for the purpose of eliciting some information.

Oh, no!

It states that a vocational education committee may subscribe to any institution, agency, etc. I think that is already provided for in Section 39, and I want to get some further information. Will there be any overlapping between that and Section 39?

Section 39 deals with co-operation between committees. I do not see any connection between them. I am glad to hear that this has been put down merely to elicit information, because the section is merely to enable a committee to help its students to get employment if there are places open for them, that at least the students may know that certain people are anxious to get students of a particular type. It has nothing to do with Section 39, which merely deals with co-operation between technical education committees.

Would it not mean working in conjunction with the employment exchanges as well?

Information for the students so as to get employment.

Will it apply to private agencies?

If they give employment.

Will it apply to the Pelman Institute?

If they give employment it will.

I move:

To insert at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) The Minister for Local Government and Public Health shall from time to time as occasion requires ascertain and determine what proportion of the salary paid to the auditor appointed to audit the accounts of a vocational education committee should be charged in respect of such audit, and the amount of such proportion of such salary shall be paid by such vocational education committee to the said Minister.

This is merely to bring the Bill into conformity with the general practice of local government in this matter.

On behalf of Deputy Jordan I move:—

To insert at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—

(3) In this Part of this Act the expression "committee of agriculture" means any committee set up (whether before or after the passing of this Act) by statute under that name to exercise functions in relation to the purposes of agriculture and other rural industries.

I assume this is a definition to secure the purpose of Deputy Jordan's other amendment to Section 59. This is a matter about which Deputy Jordan and various other Deputies asked me, and it has been raised in the Press within the last day or two— that is, if there is any danger that the compulsory powers granted under this Bill will conflict with the ordinary economic life of farming districts. I explained on Second Reading that I thought an excellent method of dealing with it from many points of view would be that in those districts in which it may be advisable to have compulsory powers used, the summer should be set apart for the compulsory attendance of girls and the winter set apart for the compulsory attendance of boys. I think the Deputy's idea is to secure that there shall not be interference with ordinary farming work, and that where there is a local agricultural committee they should be consulted as regards the time which will be made compulsory. I accept the amendment.

On behalf of Deputy Jordan I move:—

In page 23, at the end of sub-section (3), to insert the following—

"but, in the case of a district which contains the whole or any part of the functional area of a committee of agriculture, not without previous consultation with such committee."

I accept this amendment.

The Minister makes a distinction between the number of hours in a compulsory course and the number of hours in a non-compulsory course. It must be 180 hours in the compulsory course and must not be less than 180 hours in the case of the voluntary course. I could understand him not requiring an attendance of more than 180 hours. Is he not limiting the action and the scope of the committee by not allowing them to have a longer course than 180 hours?

Supposing I made it a course of 300 hours, there would not be much good in a pupil choosing odd hours here and there to attend. If you are to have effective attendance it must be for at least 180 hours; otherwise there would be no control as to whether or not they were attending. If you had a course of 360 hours the pupil might let the first 180 hours go, and then fall sick. There must be some definite course which we know he is bound to attend.

It is not very clear in the section.

I admit the section is extremely difficult; it was the one most difficult to draft.

The attendance to be any good must be 180 hours?

Quite so.

There are many courses that obviously might be extended with advantage to the other pupils.

Yes, but a certain part must be set aside as a compulsory course.

I take it that different subjects will be included in that?

Certainly.

Section 60 sets out:

Whenever the Minister is satisfied that a school (other than a school which is for the time being recognised by the Minister as a secondary school and other than a national school) affords efficient continuation education, the Minister may grant ... a certificate ....

If the vocational education committee give grants to such schools, might they not impair their proper work and not have sufficient funds?

That is a matter for them. They have to submit their whole plans to the Minister. The whole scheme has to be submitted, including that expenditure.

It is quite optional.

Yes.

I move amendment 27:

In sub-section (2) to add at the end of paragraph (e) the words "at a course approved by the Minister as equivalent to a course at a continuation school under the Vocational Education Committee."

I think the Minister will see that this is a reasonable amendment. The Minister will recognise the difficulty of dealing with the top standard in the national schools.

That is portion of what I said.

Yes, portion, and the addition of those words to this sub-section is advisable.

There is a principle involved here which I have always been keen on. I cannot compel the attendance of anybody in any individual school; that is clear. As regards full-time attendance in the national school, let us suppose the pupil has not reached the sixth standard, as often happens. The obvious thing is for the boy to continue to attend the national school. What I said about the seventh and eighth standards was that if you have a highly efficient teacher you get some of the best education in the national schools in these standards; not that the teacher is with the boy the whole time, but he is directing him, and some very good results, as I gather from the inspectors, are achieved in that way. There is what I may call wise direction. There is a tendency in that direction in other countries as well. It is a system of wise direction rather than ordinary pedagogy, in the older sense of the word. That is one reason why a student might wish to stay on, and there might be other reasons that would induce him to remain on in preference to the more practical type of education in the vocational schools. He may have a different outlook. He is compelled to attend only 180 hours. If, off his own volition, he thinks it well to attend for 900 hours or 1,000 hours, he may have good reasons for it. His liberty should not be interfered with, and that is the reason I cannot accept the amendment.

On behalf of Deputy O'Connell I move:—

In sub-section (2), line 55, to delete the words "twenty shillings" and substitute the words "five pounds."

I consider that this is a very important section in the Bill because it deals with the facilities for attending courses of instruction. If the Act is to be rigidly enforced and if these facilities are not given, I do not see what is the use of passing it at all. The fines mentioned in the Bill for defaulting employers— twenty shillings in the case of a first offence and a fine not exceeding forty shillings for subsequent offences—are entirely inadequate and will not conduce to the proper working of the Act. If I were submitting this amendment myself I would certainly double these figures, but possibly Deputy O'Connell is not as severe as I am in the matter of fining people of this description. This amendment might be taken in conjunction with amendments to Section 85, and here again I suggest an increase in the fines. If you want to make the Act effective in operation you have to increase the fines. The present fines will not tend to make the Act effective.

There is a danger here of a very real kind. A number of employers at the moment are not anxious to take in apprentices. One would like to see a different feeling amongst those employers. I do not at all like this principle of fines. I would like to see the matter dealt with in some other way. If we increase these fines I am quite sure it will only tend to increase the difficulty of getting these employers to do their duty with regard to apprentices. I am quite satisfied that the fines mentioned in the Bill, although I do not like the principle, will be just as effective as larger fines. I suggest to the Deputy that it would not be wise to increase the amounts. I see the difficulty on the other side, and possibly I know much more about it than the Deputy does because I have an opportunity of going amongst employers and hearing their views. I was reading a paper the other day in which it was stated that only 53 per cent. of employers in a certain industry took apprentices. That is very unfortunate. I would like to see that percentage 95 and even up to 100: I would like to see employers doing their duty, but if we proceed along these lines and increase the penalties we will be increasing our difficulties and we will not achieve the object that we all have in view.

I think this is the first time since I came to the House that I heard a proposal from Deputy Anthony's Benches to increase a fine. I am inclined to agree with Deputy Good. I believe that we have put in a reasonable fine. There is a certain amount of perturbation already amongst employers. I know that Deputy Good would hold that this suggestion of a fine is unreasonable and not far-seeing, but the perturbation is there. The fines are reasonable enough, I think, and I know they are not as severe as Deputy Anthony would inflict if he were to have a free hand. We are dealing with apprentices, and I doubt very much if apprentices' time is so valuable for a couple of hours a week. I doubt if it is of such great value that it would tempt an employer to incur the fine that is here in the section, with the other expenses involved in a prosecution. I think the situation is sufficiently met by the fines actually stated in the Bill.

The Minister must admit that unless these apprentices get time to attend the classes they will not become efficient working men and, as a result, the money spent on technical and vocational education will be wasted. I suggested previously to the Minister that some section should be inserted in the Bill to compel these employers to allow their apprentices to attend technical classes. By doing so, the apprentices would become more efficient and their efficiency would be reflected in the employers' ledgers. The same argument that I used then applies in this case.

I quite admit the desirability of the Deputy's aim and I appreciate what he is anxious to achieve, but the whole question is whether a fine of £5. rather than a fine of 20/-, will tend to make the Act a success. I should say that judging from the value attaching to the apprentices' time of six hours per week, a fine of 20/- on the first conviction, or a fine of 40/- on the second conviction is quite reasonable enough. Some of the other compulsory powers referred to by Deputy Anthony are actually already in the Bill.

I think the Minister ought to give some consideration to this amendment. I say that, because if the fines are trivial the employers will evade their duty. I have very great respect for Deputy Good's opinion in this matter. The Deputy has always taken a deep interest in the training of apprentices. He has been keen on that all his lifetime. Still he admits that a certain number of employers do not take apprentices. In future I think it should be made compulsory on these employers to take apprentices. I believe it will. If employers can get bright young fellows who are anxious to learn their business I believe they will be eager to get them, but at the same time they might not be so eager to let them off to get instruction and make them competent workmen. I ask the Minister to agree to increase the fines to 40/- for a first offence and 80/- for a second offence. I think that would meet Deputy Anthony's amendment and it would help to ensure the success of the working of the Act amongst that section of employers who badly want to be taught their duty.

Perhaps the Minister could tell us how often such employers could be prosecuted for breaches of this law?

As often as they contravene it.

I think the effect of a prosecution would be quite enough and that the fine does not so much matter. The prosecution is enough without increasing the fine.

Quite enough.

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, and also amendment 29.

I move amendment 30:

In sub-section (1), line 16, to delete the words "as it thinks fit" and insert after the word "officers" the words "who shall be members of the Gárda Síochána."

Some time ago a Deputy on the Government Benches wanted to have the rates collected by the Gárda Síochána, and I do not know how many other duties he wanted assigned to them. The purpose of introducing this amendment was to have economy in the working of the scheme. It is not clear what sort of attendance officers would be appointed under the Bill. I think, however, the Gárda Síochána would be able to discharge these duties. This would relieve the committees of expense and would leave more money to be devoted to education rather than having it spent on officials.

I will not now discuss whether the amendment should come in here or not, or whether the actual enforcing authority should be the vocational education committee or the Gárda. Elsewhere, except in the areas referred to, it is the Gárda that will enforce the Act. I presume what the Deputy means is that the Gárda ought to be the enforcing authority everywhere. The amendment, however, does not achieve that purpose. This is a matter that was discussed here at considerable length in 1926 on the debate on the School Attendance Act. There was a very strong plea put forward for the utilisation of the Gárda everywhere through the country, but it was then pointed out that with the number of Gárda at our disposal it was impossible to do that everywhere. Since then further duties have fallen on the Gárda, and, in addition, their numbers have been reduced. So far as school attendance is concerned it would be physically impossible for the Gárda at their present strength to undertake that duty in the districts concerned. That is the reason why in the case of primary education, and also in the case of technical education, it has been found impossible to utilise the services of the Gárda everywhere. It is really impossible that the Gárda should take on this work in addition to the duties they already have. It would mean a considerable increase in the number of the Gárda.

Why not set aside one particular Gárda in each area for this particular work?

That is what generally happens, but in the city of Dublin the Gárda authorities were definitely of opinion that they could not undertake this particular work without an increase in the number of the Gárda. In the country districts the Gárda are, in fact, assigned to that work at present.

Amendments 31 and 32, being consequential, fall with amendment 29.

I move:—

In sub-section (6), lines 19 and 20, page 34, to delete the words "his period of service with the local authority," and to substitute therefor the words "the whole of his approved service with any Irish educational authority."

The amendment is to safeguard the interests of officers who may be transferred from some authority other than a local authority. If a man is transferred, say, from Co. Tipperary to Co. Waterford he is not covered by the section.

I was not quite clear as to the purpose of the amendment. The suggestion is in regard to a man who is transferred from one local authority to another authority.

That is so.

I think that that case is meant to be covered in the section.

The section reads: "His period of service with the local authority or committee from which he is so transferred." That might be interpreted to mean that only a local officer would come within the section, and that an officer transferred from another local authority would not be included.

That is not intended. The intention is that if a person is transferred from one teaching authority to another his previous service counts. That is the intention, but if there is any doubt about it I will have it cleared up. Further, if he is transferred from authority A to authority B, to authority C, and so on, all his service will count.

Irrespective of the area or county?

Yes, but each county bears its own share of the responsibility for his pension.

It will require some adjustment.

Yes, but that is the ordinary practice. He is also protected by the Local Government Act of 1925, Part IV. As there seems to be a certain amount of ambiguity about sub-section (6) I will have the matter cleared up. I was not quite sure what the Deputy meant by "educational authority."

Would there not be difficulty over recent appointments made on a temporary basis in view of coming changes?

Yes, but it is practically impossible to legislate for that. I cannot think of any provision that would not be altogether too wide. There are some cases where appointments were made and, in the ordinary course of events, they would have been permanent appointments were it not that this Bill was in the offing. It may be possible, when we are issuing advice to the various vocational educational committees under the Bill, to call their special attention to the cases of these officers. I think that that probably in practice will meet the situation.

Would it be too wide to say that every person employed as a whole-time temporary officer shall now be employed as a permanent officer?

That might be too wide. I will see that the attention of the committees is drawn to the matter.

On the section itself. I desire to say a word about recently appointed part-time teachers. I do not know whether it is possible to put anything into the Bill to say that they should get a preference in regard to permanent appointments.

Their position will not be made worse by the Bill; I will promise that.

Not made worse in so far as they have no position at all.

If officers are transferred from one area to another their removal expenses should. I think, be paid, except, of course, where the transfer was at the officer's own request.

It will be at his own request. It will be by promotion, I presume. He will be changing his position voluntarily.

When the Bill comes into operation might he not be changed without his consent?

I will look into that point.

Would it not be fair to have preference given to these part-time men when new appointments are being made, as they have had actual experience of the work?

I cannot legislate for that. I cannot give them under the Bill a position of permanence which they have not got. I presume that the committees will keep them on.

I am afraid that that is only a presumption.

That is the position at present. There is no reason to think that the committees will not keep them on.

They will have no guarantees.

Neither have they at present. I am not worsening their position.

With regard to sub-section (2) I notice that the Minister takes power to amalgamate an urban district with a county area. It would occur to one that he should also take power to form an urban district, to separate an urban district from a county area, if the necessity arises. I would like to know if that was purposely avoided.

No, I did not think that it was necessary. We did not think that in the course of the next ten years any town would grow to such an extent that it would be economic to take it away from a county and regard it as a separate unit. If the Deputy is keen on the theoretical perfection of the Bill I will consider putting it in.

Some of the big financiers, about whom Deputy Dr-O'Higgins has spoken, might arrive at any moment and we might have a huge expansion of population.

We will legislate for that when it happens.

I move:—

To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—

"(5) Continuation and technical education in the Gaeltacht shall be conducted through the medium of Irish."

That is in accordance with the Report of the Gaeltacht Commission and in accordance with the declared policy of the Local Government Department and other Departments, that in Irish-speaking districts public business should be carried on through the medium of Irish.

I agree with the object of the amendment so far as policy is concerned, and it is only as to the wisdom of putting it into the Bill that I would question the advisability of it. As far as we have the material, the policy outlined in the amendment will be carried out, and it will be our duty to provide the material so far as we can. It might be rather unfair, however, to hold up instruction in any area until we are in a position to supply the material. The policy is undoubtedly that of the amendment and I would ask the Deputy to be satisfied with that. It would be unwise to put it so baldly into the Bill.

I take it that the Minister's declaration of policy is sufficient.

On behalf of Deputy O'Connell I move:—

In sub-section (1), line 33, to delete the word "rates" and substitute the words "scales of."

I think I might also take the next amendment, which reads:—

In sub-section (1), line 33, after the word "salaries" to insert the words "and increments."

The sub-section would then read:—

The Minister may by regulations made under this Act prescribe the minimum scales of salaries and increments for the various classes of teachers employed by vocational educational committees.

In the first place I want to make sure that these scales will be prescribed, and incidentally to make it possible for these officers and teachers to be transferred from one committee to another, or from one part of the country to another, in the same way as civil servants might be transferred, and that by that transfer they will not suffer in salary or in any scale which they had reached. It would be an inducement to some committees if they could get cheap men all the time. I want to ensure by means of these amendments that we will do something similar to what has been done in other countries. The Education Act of Northern Ireland of 1923 states: "It shall be the duty of the Ministry, after consultation with the Ministry of Finance, to frame and from time to time as the occasion requires to alter minimum scales of salaries, etc." That would perhaps make a very material alteration in the Bill, but it would be a very necessary alteration.

I am not going into the arguments put forward by the Deputy in favour of the amendment, but I am quite prepared to redraft the amendment and to insert the words "scales of" instead of "rates,""scales of" being understood to cover salaries and increments. I am not suggesting that this is going to achieve what the Deputy stated. I think it is reasonable that I should have power to prescribe the scales. Of course the two amendments go together.

Practically they amount to the same thing.

And the Minister will, of course, insert the words "and officers" after the word "teachers"?

That is another amendment.

Is the Minister accepting amendments 36 and 37?

I am accepting the principle of the amendments.

On behalf of Deputy O'Connell I move:—

In sub-section (1), line 34, after the word "teachers" to insert the words "and officers."

In sub-section (2), lines 36 and 38, after the word "teacher" to insert in each line the words "or officers," and line 38 after the word "teachers" to insert the words "or officers."

These amendments go together although one belongs really to sub-section (1) and the other to sub-section (2). This is a different matter altogether. Besides the teacher the only person who in many of the schemes would come into question would be the chief executive officer of the committee, and it would be impossible to prescribe scales of salary by formal resolutions for that one particular person or prescribe for instance for the chief executive officer in general in the country. I suggest to Deputy Anthony that the chief executive officer in control of, and responsible for a scheme in Cork, might have to be a man of very different calibre from a man in control of a scheme in a small area. Therefore to prescribe the scales in general would be practically out of the question. I take it for granted that when a man is being appointed by a committee, the question of the salary and increments will be discussed between the committee and the Minister. That is inevitable. There are a few other schemes in which you may have other officials, but exactly the same arguments against a general prescription of the kind demanded by Deputy Anthony hold in their case as in the case of the others. Therefore, though I am prepared to accept the principle of the two previous amendments I am not prepared to accept the principle of these amendments.

I move:

In sub-section (1), line 40, to insert after the word "teachers" the words "including teachers of Irish."

This amendment is absolutely unnecessary:

The power is in the Bill already?

They are treated like other teachers. The suggestion that they are a class apart is a misconception.

They are.

But not legally.

On behalf of Deputy O'Connell I move:—

In sub-section (1), line 58, after the word "Minister" to insert the words "or a vocational education committee."

Under Sections 31 and 33 these vocational committees may assist in maintaining schools which require grants from the committees. Any school so assisted should be subject to inspection by the Department. By what other means will the Minister propose to allocate the grant?

Of course the local committee can make that condition. I will consider between this and the Report Stage whether or not I can accept the amendment. I find that at first I misread it, and I would like to have time to consider it between now and the Report Stage.

Before the Bill is finally put through Committee, I would like to say that I presume that these vocational education committees are sub-committees of the county councils or the borough councils. Consequently these educational authorities will get the services of such officers of the county council or borough council as solicitor, architect, engineer, borough surveyor, etc., of course, by agreement with the rating authority.

Yes, they may come to an agreement of that kind. I presume there is nothing against it, but they are not entitled; they are only committees of the county council for the purposes definitely set forth in the provisions of this Bill. I see no reason why they should not come to an agreement of the kind suggested.

But they are not entitled by law.

I do not think they are entitled.

First and Second Schedules agreed to.

THIRD SCHEDULE.

On behalf of Deputy Michael Jordan I move amendment 42:—

To delete Part II. and substitute the following:—

PART II.

IN COUNTIES.

The effect of this amendment will be, as indicated, to establish a shorter period within which the maximum amount contributed by the local authority to the vocational education committee shall cease. In the existing schedule, the time at which the payment is to cease is the 1st April, 1947, and the maximum amount at that period is 6d. in the £. In the amendment, the time at which the payment is to stop is 1st April, 1940, and the maximum amount to be paid in that case is 4d. in the £. It will also be noticed that the first item in the amendment, that is, in the year commencing 1st April, 1931, the maximum number of pence in the £ is altered from 2d. to 1¾d.; that is to conform with an amendment the principle of which has already been accepted by the Minister. The scale on which the contribution advances is the same as in the existing schedule. It is at the rate of ¼d. per year. The only real difference the acceptance of this amendment will have on the Bill as it stands is the fixing of the maximum amount at 4d. in the £ instead of 6d., and the time in which the payment is to cease is 1940 instead of 1947.

The reasons for proposing this amendment have already been stated on the Second Reading of the Bill, the general financial question and the increased burden which is being placed upon local authorities. It might be pointed out that although payments under the Act will cease in 1940 there is no reason why an amending Bill should not be introduced at that stage to increase the amount and to carry on to 1947. In the meantime a good deal of experience and knowledge as to the working of the Act would have been gained in the country, and the people would have an opportunity of realising whether they believe the Act has been effective, not whether the Act should be carried on, but whether the payment should be increased in accordance with the scale in existence.

As I indicated already on the Second Reading, I am satisfied to legislate for ten years ahead. I put down the original scale to indicate what the maximum scale would be when the scheme is in full working order. I think I said also that in a good many counties it need never reach the actual 6d. I should say, in the majority of counties, it would not reach the maximum of 6d. I have no objection if anybody wishes in these counties to stop in the year 1940. Undoubtedly it can be reconsidered then, and undoubtedly a number of other things in this Bill will require amendment in the year 1940. Therefore I will accept the principle of the amendment that there should be some adjustment in connection with certain counties.