§ COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if changing Irish from an extra to an ordinary subject will occasion loss to those teachers who have hitherto taught Irish as an extra; and, if so, will the Treasury compensate teachers for their loss of income.
§ MR. WALTER LONGThe payments referred to form no part of the regular income of teachers, and of course no claim for compensation arises.
§ COLONEL NOLANAre these teachers, or some of them, going to lose to the extent of £15 or £16 a year?
§ MR. WALTER LONGObviously they will lose to the extent of the extra fees which will now cease.
§ MR. MACVEAGHOn behalf of the hon. Member for East Mayo, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland why it is considered necessary to treat the Treasury letters in reference to the withdrawal of the grant for Irish as an extra subject in national schools in Ireland as confidential, in view of the fact that the Treasury letter to the National Board in reference to the amalgamation of Irish national schools has been published.
§ MR. WALTER LONGThe extract from the letter referred to in the second part of the Question was published because it was considered that its publication would not lead to the disclosure of confidential matter. The same consideration does not apply to the case of the correspondence that has taken place in the matter of the payment of fees for extra subjects.
§ MR. MACVEAGHOn behalf of the hon. Member for East Mayo, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the National. 813 Board of Education in Ireland approve of the withdrawal of the grant for Irish as an extra subject in national schools in Ireland; and whether the Board accepts full responsibility for this step.
§ MR. WALTER LONGThe Board offered no opinion on the question of the propriety of discontinuing the fees for all extra subjects, and they gave their consent to the discontinuance of such fees on the condition that the savings thereby effected should not be applied in reduction of the Vote but should be devoted to the purposes of Irish national education. I may take this opportunity of pointing out that my attention has been directed to a statement which has been attributed to me in this connection by the Press, to the effect that I had declared that the Board, in arriving at their unanimous decision in this matter, had done so on the condition that provided the money was available for other Irish education purposes, the grants available for the extra subjects could not be continued. No such statement was made by me. I may also add that while it is the fact, as stated by me yesterday†, that the suggestion in favour of the discontinuance of fees for extra branches was made by the Treasury, the recent correspondence that has taken place on the subject originated with the Board. In February, 1900, the Board expressed the opinion that the total payments for extras would not exceed £2,000 per annum. Last year they amounted to over £14,000, and in consequence of this growth of expenditure the Treasury suggested that a revision of the existing system was necessary. The Treasury also proposed that the special fees for extra subjects should terminate on March 31st, 1906. This proposal of the Treasury was brought before the Board, who adopted, by a unanimous vote, the resolution to which I have referred.
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)said the right hon. Gentleman had quoted somewhat extensively from the communications which had passed between the Treasury and the National Board, and he claimed that the whole
† See page 697.814 correspondence ought to be laid on the Table of the House.
§ MR. WALTER LONGreplied that he had not made any actual quotation; he had simply given a summary of what had passed.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDappealed to the Speaker whether, under the rules of the House, the correspondence ought not to be laid.
§ *MR. SPEAKERA Minister is entitled to summarise a correspondence, and if he does not actually quote from it he is not bound to produce it.