Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 3 Dec 1925

Vol. 13 No. 13

SCHOOL ATTENDANCE BILL, 1925—SECOND STAGE.

I move the Second Reading of the School Attendance Bill, 1925. It is a Bill which has been so long expected by this House and on which so much comment has been made by reason of the delay that I do not think there is very much necessity for me to go into any great detail on the Second Reading, which concerns only the principle of the Bill. Conditions in Saorstát Eireann with regard to school attendance may be briefly indicated, because it is by reason of the failure under the present conditions to secure attendance at school that this Bill is required. There had been an Act passed in 1892 to ensure attendance at schools and that Act had, to a great extent, failed for a variety of reasons. In the first case, the Act was not mandatory in certain respects. It was left optional to local authorities to set up school attendance committees who could enforce the Act, and in very many of the districts throughout the country the Act was not at all availed of, and where it was availed of, further weaknesses of the Act were soon made apparent. There were many loop-holes for escape. It was very difficult to get cases brought and there were very limited penalties for non-compliance. This Act remedies the defects of the 1892 Act as far as those three items are concerned. There was a further point that in the less populous districts in the rural areas the moneys that were paid to attendance officers were such that they did not succeed in getting any great attention to their duties. That was an added defect in the working out of the Act which contained so many possibilities of being defeated by itself.

Deputies who have read this Bill will see that it provides a fairly easy and certainly an easily enforceable method of securing attendance at schools. The one big difficulty which had to be met and the difficulty which has caused the delay in introducing this measure was the finding of a suitable enforcing authority for the Bill when it became a statute. That has been got over by making members of the Gárda Síochána the enforcing authorities, except in certain areas set out in the schedule to the Bill, those areas being Dublin and its suburbs, Cork, Limerick and Waterford. In those areas provision is made for the keeping on of the old attendance officers and the committees set up under the local authorities. It has been found impossible to have the Gárdai undertake the duties that would be imposed upon them elsewhere under the Act in these districts that I have mentioned, and in the districts I have mentioned it happens to be the case that the machinery set up by the local authorities is working fairly efficiently, so that there will be no failure to have the Act enforced in these areas either. The Bill, therefore, is designed to cover the defects of the 1892 Act. It is believed that it does that by stopping up any loop-holes that existed in the prior Act through which persons could escape, by having an enforcing authority which can be made to enforce the provisions of the Act and by having non-compliance very drastically dealt with.

There is one further point I would like to mention in introducing the Bill. One might almost found the introduction of the Bill on this particular matter. That is the question of the percentage of those of school age who actually are in attendance at school. It has been calculated that the percentage of attendance at school is only about 73 or 74 of those actually on the rolls, and there has been a suspicion that that percentage is even too highly stated, because there is a definite knowledge that there are a great many pupils attending who are not returned on the rolls in that particular way in which the rolls are made up. A comparison with the ordinary census and returns with regard to children of school age, between the ages of six and fourteen, is set out in this Bill. The difference between the number of children of school-going age and those actually returned as being on the roll is so great as to warrant the conclusion that the real percentage of absentees instead of being about 27 would actually be about 40. Even if it were merely a 27 per cent. of absentees it would be sufficient, but the other calculation in all certainty would make the percentage of absentees somewhere around 40, and warrants in itself the introduction of a Bill of this sort. I cannot conceive that there is going to be any serious objection to the principle of this Bill—that is to say, compulsion with regard to attendance at school within certain ages. But I have no doubt that a great many objections will be taken on many points. Already one is foreshadowed in respect to the age of 14. Is that sufficient? I submit if these points are going to be raised they are more matters for amendment and matters for discussion on the Committee Stage, where they can be argued and where the points can be met. I do not think there is anything further to be said on the principle of the measure which is all that is under discussion to-day. I move the Second Reading.

I think the Bill which the Minister has just explained is an excellent one. The only criticism that at this stage one would wish to make is that dealing with the compulsory attendance of the children being placed in the hands of the Gárda Síochána. It must be recognised, on the other hand, that in a sparsely populated country very few organisations could operate in the way that the police force can operate. Perhaps it is unwise to criticise that phase of the Bill without, at the same time, being able to suggest an alternative. Personally, I could not suggest an alternative by which the Bill could be put into operation successfully. I merely raise the question so that the operation of the Bill on the part of the Gárda Síochána should interfere as little as possible with the liberty of the people. On the other hand we must recognise that it is absolutely necessary that the children should be compelled to attend school and receive an education. All over the country it is very difficult to get the parents to send the children to school if they can avoid doing so. While I regret the necessity for compulsion, I could not contend that it is not necessary in a measure like this. The other matters that the Minister referred to can be dealt with on the Committee Stage. The whole principle of the Bill lies in compulsion and the means of seeing that it is effective. I would like the Minister and the Dáil to consider the question of embodying some regulations in the Bill controlling the enforcement of compulsion by the police force.

I welcome this Bill which, I may say, is long overdue. It is questionable whether the age of 14 is sufficiently high, and if it should not be extended to 16 years. Some of us are of opinion that 16 years should be the minimum age, but, as the Minister has stated, these are matters that can be better dealt with on the Committee Stage. I think it will be generally admitted that the Bill is absolutely necessary, as the standard of school attendance in this country is deplorably low. Deputies should try and find out what are the causes of that low attendance. The neglect of the parents, I submit, is not the only cause. It is probably known to many Deputies that there are other reasons why children are not compelled to go to school by their parents. I can give some of the reasons. Most Deputies have witnessed the spectacle of poor, barefooted children trudging two or three miles, often through snow, to school, where they have to remain for four, five or six hours. The schoolhouse may not, perhaps, even have a very good roof. These children very often go to school with a bad breakfast or perhaps without any breakfast. They have to remain in the school and are without food, and then trudge back home in the evening. That state of affairs applies to both town and country, but with greater force, I think, to country districts.

It seems to me that this Bill is not going to solve the problem unless some provision is made whereby poor children will be fed and clothed and the schools made attractive for the children so that they will realise that if they have to go to school they will be sure of getting a warm meal in the middle of the day. If something like that could be done it would be one of the greatest factors towards improving school attendance. Attendance at school would also be helped if something could be done to provide the poorer children with good boots and, if possible, warm clothing, particularly during the winter months. The proposal in the Bill to enforce attendance through the police is an experiment that will, I hope, turn out successfully. Personally, I have my doubts as to whether it is a wise procedure. If the Minister and the Department of Education believe that by making the Gárda Síochána responsible for the attendance of school children they are going to secure a better attendance, I am prepared to vote in favour of the Bill.

Not alone managers and teachers, but the whole country will welcome this Bill, which is long overdue. That Act of 1892 has been alluded to. That Act gave the option of compulsory attendance being enforced in the counties. Some counties availed of it. County Kildare, to which I have the honour to belong and for which I am one of the Deputies, put the Act in force some time after it was passed, and I think, as far as the towns are concerned, it worked fairly well. It certainly did not work well in country districts. One reason for that was that it was difficult to get the School Attendance Committees to meet regularly. Sometimes weeks and months would elapse between meetings, and, of course, that had bad results.

Another reason for the poor school attendance was that in these days people had a dislike to being hard on the parents for not sending their children to school. The excuse was that the parents could not allow the children to go to school because of home necessities. That sort of excuse had very bad effects. In many cases the penalties under the Act were so light that they were practically useless. Very often when penalties were imposed by magistrates those who had to pay them went round with collecting cards and collected not only the fine but a good deal more. In some cases they collected from the very people who had imposed the fine. That is one reason why I congratulated the Government on doing away with J.P.'s. These unfortunate gentlemen were very often beset by applicants imploring them to consider the position of the father and mother if a fine were inflicted. I hope that if fines are imposed by the new Bill the Gárda Síochána will be able to give attention to that aspect of the question. I notice that School Attendance Committees are to be continued in the towns. I think that is right, because it is is easy to get committees to attend to the work in the towns. It is quite different in the country, and for that reason I think it is an extremely good idea—although Deputy Morrissey does not altogether fall in with it—that the Gárda Síochána should have charge in this respect. I do not think any better arrangement could be got, and up to the present I have not heard any suggested. The police know the conditions in the country and they have information that other people have not. I think that the proposal in the Bill will prove to be a good one.

A great many children waste time on the way to school. I have often wondered what the feelings of the teachers must be when children that should be in school at 9 or 10 o'clock arrive about 12. I think the Gárda Síochána will now be entitled to ask children whom they find playing about the streets or roads at 11.30 why they are not at school. That power should have a good effect on the attendance.

There is a class of children very difficult to deal with, but under this Bill they might be looked after. I refer to the children of travelling gypsies. I alluded to this matter when the Local Government Bill was before the Dáil. Since that the number of caravans that are going through the country have very much increased. I have seen as many as 30 children with two such encampments. I took the trouble to count them and out of two vans came 30 children. I do not know how many grown up people were there. I am perfectly certain that these children do not attend school; they grow up wild, and if not looked after they become apaches. It seems to me that something should be done for children like these and that their position should be brought to the attention of the police. They are growing up without education and will be a danger if something is not done for them.

Another class of children to which I would direct the attention of the Dáil are those that live on barges. That is one of the reasons that I welcome the employment of the Gárda Síochána in looking after school attendance, as they will be able to deal with these cases much more effectively than any school-attendance officer could. The regulations giving power to parents to keep the children at home at certain periods of the year is a good one. Whether the seasons mentioned are the right ones or not I am not sure. I think it is a good thing to give parents at certain times in the spring and autumn the right to keep the children away for a certain time, provided they attend regularly during the remainder of the year.

So far as I am concerned, I think the Bill is a great advance on anything we have had hitherto, and I think the result of it will be good for the uplifting of the educational standard of the children if it is properly enforced, and I am sure that that will be done.

The falling off in the attendance of school-children in the city of Dublin is rather deplorable. I made it my business to enquire as to some of the causes, and, perhaps, it is well that the Minister should know that the points put forward by Deputy Morrissey also largely apply, and perhaps even apply more particularly, to the city of Dublin than to the country districts. There are people who have no boots or stockings for their children. In some cases the unfortunate children in the slums have barely a covering for their bodies, and their parents are not anxious to send them to school under these conditions. I have known cases in the city, not a stone's throw from Nelson's Pillar, in which children went to school without their breakfast. I think the Minister should take some steps to deal with cases of that kind. It is no use fining the parents sums which they cannot pay, and sums which would really be sufficient to buy boots for their children. There are schools on the north side of the city where numbers of these cases can be found, and if the Minister will make enquiries from the teachers there he will find that the attendance in these schools in the slum areas has fallen off simply because of poverty and the want of clothes. Within the last few days I was brought into close contact with a case in which the mother of a family appealed for cast-off boots for her children, and her reason for appealing was that she was afraid, if the children remained at home much longer, she would be brought to court and fined. I do not say that the Minister or the school attendance authorities should slacken in any way their efforts to improve the attendance at school, but I think, where definite proof can be given of abject poverty, and where the parents are anxious to send their children to school, there ought to be some means of providing such children with boots and stockings and, if necessary, with clothing, to enable them to attend school. When they do get to school there should be somebody there to see that they will not go home hungry. Were steps taken in that direction, I believe that the attendance at school would be much better all round.

There are just three points which I would like to make on the Bill. The first is that the efforts of the school attendance authorities would be much facilitated and made much more pleasant if they were assisted in their work by the fact that leaving certificates were given at the end of the primary school period of education. If such certificates were given it would not be very long before they would be looked for by employers when taking on employees, and it would help rather to soften the work of the school attendance authorities by getting after the parents and showing them that by sending their children to school they were really helping them to get employment later on. The second point I wish to make is that the Bill as it stands would bring the compulsory education period up to 14 years of age. That is, the child would be relieved of the necessity of going to school under this Act if he were fourteen years and one month. That, inevitably, brings in a very definite gap between the end of the compulsory period of education and the beginning of the employment age period. Very earnest consideration should, I suggest, be given to what is likely to be the result of that. In my opinion it is likely, in a big majority of cases, to have the result of the products of the primary schools lapsing into habits of idleness and losing the edge of their educational fitness, thus making them less fit for employment when the time comes. My third point is with regard to the fines collected under the Act. I do not know whether it has yet been decided how those fines are to be utilised, but I suggest that consideration ought to be given to the question whether the money ought to be put into a local school equipment fund so that the fines collected in a particular locality would be used in helping to give the schools proper equipment. As soon as the Act begins to work you are going to see breakages in the educational vessel all over the country, as many of the schools are badly equipped and have inadequate teaching staffs.

It seems to me a pity that any compulsory Bill should be necessary in regard to this matter, but the Minister has made out a case that only 72 per cent. of the children attend school, and, analysing the case a little further, he said, that 40 per cent. were absent. When that statement is taken into consideration, along with the statement that 10 per cent. of the people in cities are illiterate, it seems to be necessary to have a compulsory Act of this kind. Therefore, I give it my heartiest support. Deputy Mulcahy suggested that a child would leave school at the age of 14 years and one month, but it seems to me that the child will leave at the age of 13 years and 10½ months. That a child has to be under fourteen is one of the provisions of the Bill. If his age were nearer the 31st December it would mean that he would not be compelled to go to school any longer after the middle of November. There is a provision here that should there be no national school accessible to the child which he could attend, that is a reasonable excuse for failure to apply the Act. I think some provision should be made in cases of that kind by which children could be conveyed to school. With regard to distance, two miles is the limit for a child between the age of six and ten years, and three miles for a child between the age of 10 and 14. While it is good, in my opinion, for a healthy child between six and ten years to walk two miles to school in the morning and two miles back in the evening, I think in the case of a delicate child there would be great difficulty, particularly in the winter months, in getting any sort of decent attendance. Deputy Morrissey raised a point about which I have for a long time felt very strongly, namely, that there should be some provision made for giving a meal to children during the day. Children must have their breakfast about eight o'clock, though unfortunately, according to Deputy Byrne and Deputy Morrissey, many of them are unable to get any breakfast. They have to leave home at nine o'clock if they have to walk two miles and get to school at 10 o'clock. If they leave school at 3 o'clock they will not be home until four, and by that time they would be unable to take any food.

I have long held that it is an absolute necessity that some form of meal, either hot milk, broth or soup, with bread, should be given to the children during the middle of the day. I am sorry that there is no provision with regard to this, and I am also sorry there is no provision by which children can be conveyed to school where the distance is far. There is a provision that there must be "a suitable means of conveyance to the school available for the child from a point within a reasonable distance from the child's residence." That is extremely vague. It might mean that there may be a motor car or mail car running between certain points and the child may be picked up on the way by such a conveyance. There should be some specific arrangement by which children can be conveyed to school. Although I am extremely sorry for the children who are not able to get boots and clothes, I do not think we can suggest at present that these should be supplied by the schools. I agree with Deputy Mulcahy that there is very little use in making compulsory attendance necessary unless the schools themselves are properly equipped and properly heated, and unless they have proper teachers and teaching. The proposal to give a ten days' allowance during the putting in, and another ten days during the taking out of the crops, seems to me a very reasonable solution, but, on the other hand, as was pointed out to me by one of the Deputies, owing to the length of the holidays, and considering that there is no school on Saturdays, there is no great necessity for including this provision in the Bill. The case might reasonably be met by giving the managers, as I believe they have, the power to fix holidays for children in rural areas in the particular time when they are most needed for the putting in or the taking out of the crops. On the whole I am pleased that the Government at last have brought in this measure, but one sees so many things that are necessary in addition to compulsion that one can hardly say the Bill meets all the requirements of the case.

As the Minister stated, the House and the country have been for a long time expecting this Bill. It is over three years since the Dáil by a resolution urged that such a measure should be brought in at the first available opportunity, and I suppose we must take it from the Government that this is the first available opportunity. As he has stated, I do not think there will be any difference of opinion as to the general principles involved in this measure. From all sides of the House a call has gone forth repeatedly for the introduction of a Bill of this kind. At the same time I think it advisable that some remarks should be made on the main features of the Bill by the various parties, because this will help us in framing suitable amendments later on. Some of the Deputies spoke as if it were a pity that such a measure had to be introduced, and as if it indicated some national neglect on the part of parents that such a measure of compulsion should be necessary, but the fact is that compulsory school attendance is the law of the land in practically every civilised country. At all events I know of none in which there is not compulsory school attendance. It is only a question of the measure of its effectiveness. With regard to the position in Ireland, we had it briefly stated by the Minister in his introductory speech. We have had, or are supposed to have had, a compulsory school attendance law since 1892, but that Act was not mandatory, and in many cases it was not enforced, and often when it was put into operation it failed in its object.

The whole result of such legislation as we have had up to the present was summed up in the figures the Minister gave with regard to the present attendance at the schools. He told us that, taking everything into account, it is quite safe to say that 40 children out of every 100 of school-going age were at home from school every day. That is the position. That is what we understand by a 60 per cent. attendance at schools. Nothing further should be necessary to condemn the legislation we have had up to the present, and to show the necessity for a measure of this kind. The Minister might have gone further, and said that if such places as Dublin and Cork, and generally the towns mentioned in the schedule were taken out, the figures would be very much worse for other parts of the country; for in Dublin and Cork for the last two or three years a comparatively high percentage has been obtained, which shows that in the rural areas the percentage is very much lower than would be indicated by the general figure mentioned by the Minister. With regard to the Bill, there are one or two other matters to which grave objection must be taken. In the first place, the upper age limit is fixed at 14. I think that is entirely too low, and I hope before the Bill leaves the Dáil the age will be changed.

I throw out the suggestion to the Ministry that this measure should not in any way be regarded as a party measure, and that he would on all amendments or motions, leave it, and make it plain that it is so, to a free vote of the Dáil as to what changes should be made in the Bill in Committee. When compulsion was first introduced 33 years ago the age limit was fixed at 14, and now in 1925 we are introducing a compulsory school attendance measure, and are leaving the age at what it was fixed in 1892. I do not know whether the Ministry, or the Minister, made any inquiries as to the position in other countries with regard to the age limit. In these matters we have been too much inclined in the past to look at what was done in England, and taking example by that. It is well known that in educational matters England is one of the least progressive countries in the world. In England in their Act of 1918, while they have not actually made a higher age limit than 14 mandatory, they have given permission to local authorities, who have a lot to say in educational matters there, to make the age compulsory up to 15 in some cases, and in certain circumstances even up to 18. Powers are given to the Board of Education in England in the Act of 1918 to have education compulsory in certain circumstances up to the age of 18. But in other countries we have the same. In Canada for instance, in two of the provinces, Alberta and Manitoba, the minimum leaving age is fixed at 15. In New Brunswick and Nova Scotia it is 16; in Ontario it is 18; in 34 States of the United States of America it is 16, in 4 of these States it is 17 and in 2 it is 18. In South Africa the age is 16, in 6 Cantons of Switzerland the age is 15, and in 3 it is 16; in Greece the age is 16, in Norway it is 15, in Serbia it is 15, and in Germany it is 18. There are continuation schools in Germany in which the attendance is compulsory from 14 to 18. In France the school leaving age is 16, and in the Saorstát it is 14. Must we always linger behind?

I suggest that the Minister and the Ministry should give this question their earnest attention, and if their view is that it is not feasible at the moment, to raise the age limit beyond 14, they should certainly take powers in the Bill, as has been done in the British Acts, to raise the age by a simple order later on. In other words, it would be only a question of administration until the age could be increased beyond what it is at the present time. There is, as Deputy Mulcahy has said, that gap between 14 and 16. Sixteen is the general age at which children enter employment. That is the time when children require most attention. That is the time, I believe, at which the greatest educational effort should be made, and the greatest educational advantage could be reaped proportionately by the child. He has reached the age of 14, an age at which he is able to appreciate better than in his earlier years the advantages of education, and it is well known that it is during these years that the children who can attend, benefit much more than they did at any time up to the age of 14. I do hope, therefore, that the Dáil will agree to increase the age which is set forth in this Bill.

Now, there is another point to which I wish to refer. It is on the matter of these special exemptions which are set forth in Section 4. I think there is no necessity whatsoever for these exemptions. In sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 4, these exemptions are set forth. Now, the position at the moment is this: that there are altogether some 250 possible school days, leaving out Saturdays and Sundays. Of these 250 days, 40 days, or eight school weeks, are to be taken as vacation. There are Church holidays, bank holidays, in some cases fair days and special days, election days and other days of that kind that make up for at least 20 school days. In any case the number of days required under the regulations during which the school should be opened in the normal way is 200 days. Of late years, since the special Irish course came to be adopted, scarcely any school is open 200 days. Now, my contention is, if you take that into account and take also the provision in the first portion, sub-section (1) of Section 4, which provides that a child may be absent if there is reasonable excuse, you will find that you are cutting down the child's school life very considerably by inserting these exemptions and giving these twenty extra days.

It is quite easy, as Deputy Sir James Craig mentioned, for schools to arrange their vacation to fit in with the spring work and the harvest work. The Easter vacation is generally given and generally coincides with the time of putting in the crops. There is generally a ten or twelve school-day vacation given at Easter. The summer vacation is generally given at the time when the work is busiest on the farm. I believe that in this matter of setting out these exemptions in the Bill we are cutting across the Convention which the Dáil has ratified, the Convention concerning the age for admission of children to employment in agriculture. The first article of that Convention which has been ratified by the Oireachtas states:—

"Children under the age of fourteen years may not be employed on work in any public or private agricultural undertaking or in any branch thereof, save outside the hours fixed for school attendance. If they are employed outside the hours of school attendance, the employment shall not be such as to prejudice their attendance at school."

That article definitely states that they shall not be employed on work on any private or public agricultural undertaking save outside the hours fixed for school attendance. The second article, on which, no doubt, the Minister will rely if he stands over this exemption, states:—

"For the purpose of practical vocational instruction the periods of the hours of school attendance may be so arranged as to permit of the employment of school-children at light agricultural work, and in particular light agricultural work connected with the harvest; provided such employment shall not reduce the period of school attendance to less than eight months."

Whatever eight months may mean there—whether eight months means eight school months or eight calendar months or eight months made up of school weeks. Apart from that it is clearly indicated, however, that the work on which they may be engaged will be work for the purpose of practical vocational instruction. That clearly indicates not merely working indiscriminately everywhere and anywhere, but working under the supervision of some instructors, some technical instructors, possibly agricultural instructors, some school organisation in any case which is for the purpose of practical vocational instruction.

I maintain that the insertion of this sub-section giving these special exemptions is contrary to the spirit, and even to the letter, of the Convention, which has been agreed to by the Dáil in regard to the employment of children. In the British Act of Parliament there are no exemptions. There is a clear cut in that Act, taking away whatever exemptions were given in the previous Acts, and there is no employment of children allowed under the age of 14 years, under any condition or circumstance. In some countries exemptions are given for work of this nature much on the lines of this Bill. But they are very few, and in no circumstance whatsoever in any country so far as I can discover, is there an exemption at such a low age as 10 years. Twelve is the very lowest age at which exemptions are given, and the majority of countries give no such exemptions. There are none in England. There is no exemption in Denmark, a country to which we often look for an example; none in Sweden or Norway, and none in 22 Cantons of Switzerland. No exemptions are allowed in Australia or in South Africa. In the United States there are no exemptions allowed in a considerable number of States, and in those States in which exemption is given the age is 12, and a certificate must be given that the child has reached a certain stage of efficiency before any exemption is given. I do hope therefore that the Minister will see his way to delete, or agree to the deletion of this special sub-section giving these exemptions, because I maintain that the conditions here, where our school week consists of five days, are different to those in other countries. That is not the case in the countries in which exemptions are given, and where there are closings for holidays, for vacations and so forth. These are quite sufficient to meet the case. These already leave the child's school year sufficiently short without putting in these special exemptions here. I know that, of course, it may be argued, and quite possibly will be argued, that a child of ten can be very useful at busy times on the farm. That will be argued, and it would be just on a line, but to a lesser degree, with the arguments that were put up in the early days of the last century in Lancashire where the children worked in the mills at a very young age and where their parents were extremely anxious that they should continue at work.

But public opinion agreed that it was wrong that children of that age should be so engaged, and that it was better that they should be at school at that age, and that a sacrifice would have to be made by the parents in the interests of the children and in the interests of the community as a whole. I do not know that there is anything else that I want to refer to except some small points which would be matters to be dealt with in the Committee Stage. I do hope that in these two points in any case, the Bill will be altered before it leaves the Dáil. I would like to say one word on what is possibly one of the chief features of the Bill and which may be regarded as one of its principles. That is the idea of introducing the Gárda Síochána as the enforcing authority in the rural areas. There is nothing in the Bill of which I am so convinced as of the necessity that this innovation should be made that the Gárda Síochána should be employed to enforce school attendance. The history of the school attendance committees, the rural committees especially, is set forth in the results which they have achieved, and we know what they are. But the position was just that where Committees were set up they generally had no finance. They were not able to employ a whole-time officer. If they did employ a whole-time officer, his salary would come altogether too heavy on the rates, especially on the rural areas. So we find that whole-time officers were not employed in the vast majority of cases. Then the type of man that was employed was generally an insurance agent or a local pensioner, or a rate collector perhaps, or somebody of that kind. We can quite well understand the difficulty such a person would have in bringing prosecutions against people on whom he would be calling the next day for an insurance policy or something of that kind. There is one case on record where the local publican was appointed as school attendance officer. I do not think that it could be argued that a man of that type would be particularly anxious to bring prosecutions against his customers.

His best customers.

Mr. O'CONNELL

Yes, his best customers, as Deputy Johnson reminds me, because they would be the most likely to have their children at home from school. I agree further, and I have made it my business to have inquiries made in all parts of the country and to get the views of the people in all parts of the country, and I am satisfied that if the Bill is to be made a success, the introduction of the Gárda Síochána as the enforcing authority is one of the features that is most likely to make it a success. I thoroughly agree with that principle of entrusting the enforcing of the Act to the Gárda Síochána. There may, of course, be some criticism as to the actual machinery used. There may be different views as to the actual manner in which the Gárda Síochana may be brought into it.

On the general principle of using the Gárda Síochana as the enforcing authority, I am in perfect agreement. I think it is the only means by which successful school attendance can be secured throughout the area of the Saorstát. There was one point mentioned by Deputy Mulcahy which struck me as peculiar. That was with regard to the fines. He suggested that the fines should be given to the schools for equipment. If that suggestion were adopted, we would have the position that in a school where you had good attendance you would have poor equipment, and where you would have a poor attendance you would have suitable equipment.

Would that apply if the fines were pooled for the Saorstát?

Mr. O'CONNELL

That might be a better suggestion. I strongly support the motion for the Second Reading, but I hope that when we come to Committee Stage the defects which I have pointed out will be remedied.

I would like to add my welcome to this long-expected measure, which some of us were anxious to see introduced at a much earlier stage. But we are thankful in this country for small mercies, even though they be delayed. The one outstanding regret that one has in connection with this measure is that it is introduced as a separate unit, instead of being part of a considered scheme of education. I am afraid we are too prone in this country to consider education departmentally, instead of regarding it as a considered whole. While this measure may improve the existing situation, like some other Deputies, I am satisfied that it does not go at all far enough.

As regards the question that stress is laid on in some of the clauses— reasonable excuses for non-attendance —I suppose there is no country where you will get so many well-considered excuses in almost every department of life as you will in this small island of ours. Some of our people might be looked upon as professionals in that respect. Instead of assisting in the way of excuses, one would prefer to see in this measure a tightening up so that excuses, except they were genuine, would not be considered. We find amongst the reasonable excuses in paragraph (a) of sub-section 2 of Section 4 the excuse of "sickness." I am afraid that if that is to be treated in the ordinary way, this compulsory system is not going to be very effective. Among parents who want to keep their children from school, I think this will be found a popular form of excuse. The Minister will naturally say that in a case of serious sickness it would be unfair to call upon the parents to send the child to school. The difficulty will be to devise a system whereby this excuse will not prevent a number of children from getting the education which they should get. We must endeavour by some means, when this Bill reaches Committee stage, to tighten up this clause. One means whereby this difficulty might be surmounted suggests itself. Where the average attendance of the child reaches seventy-five per cent. there is evidence, both on the part of the parents and on the part of the child, of a desire to take advantage of the education provided. In a case of that kind, one would not be disposed to act as firmly as one would where the attendance was not up to that standard. It is the practice to-day in some schools that where the attendance is below seventy-five per cent. some form of certificate from a medical authority is necessary. I only suggest that, in passing, as a means whereby the evasion of this compulsory system might be prevented.

With regard to these allowances of time off in agricultural districts, in common with Deputy O'Connell I would like to see these allowances done away with. There may be hard cases in which it would be desirable to allow pupils off, but it is a well-known fact that hard cases make bad law. One would be inclined to devise some other means of dealing with this difficulty rather than make special provision in the Bill for children not attending school during two important periods of the year. The result of the inclusion of clauses of this character may be that the schools will be closed up during those periods, because compulsion will not exist and the desire to attend school will not be there.

The most serious flaw in this Bill is, to my mind, the age limit. If we could get what we all desire, and what we seldom get in this House, a free vote, representing the individual views of the different Deputies, I am sure we would get a very high percentage of Deputies in favour of a much higher leaving age than fourteen. There are difficulties in connection with the matter, but those difficulties, I am satisfied, can be got over without very great sacrifice. What happens at the moment is, that boys and girls leave school at fourteen, without having attained any particular standard. A number of them attain fifth standard, and some of them attain sixth standard, while others go even higher, but these are exceptions. I am sure that if you were to take the average standard of education attained in the Free State by the boy or girl leaving a primary school, you would find it exceedingly low.

The years between fourteen and sixteen are, to my mind, the most important years in connection with school work, and I would urge that the age of fourteen should be increased to sixteen. If that would debar some boys or girls from entering particular trades or particular classes of employment, then we can make provision to meet that. What is happening to-day? In our city alone of the boys and girls who leave our primary schools each year, six thousand register at the juvenile department of our Labour Exchanges. We are only able to find employment for less than one thousand out of the six thousand who register. What becomes of the other five thousand? That is an appalling problem. To my mind it is one of the greatest blots on our educational system to-day. We take charge of the education of a boy or girl up to the age of fourteen. When they reach that age we leave them to their own resources and tell them to do the best they can. That is, to my mind, a wastage of the best assets of our country. What is done in other countries? Deputy Johnson has told us of what is done in America. Perhaps I may come nearer home and say what is done in Germany. As soon as a pupil reaches a certain standard in the primary school in Germany, he goes on to a continuation school or technical school and into a certain trade, because apprenticeship in Germany is under the control of the Government and the Government keeps in touch with the training of the boy or girl until he or she reaches 18, 19, 20 or 21 and is a useful citizen, capable of earning a livelihood.

Contrast that with our system! We turn out the boys and girls at 14 and take no further interest in them. They are not allowed to enter a technical school until they have reached the age of 14, except they have been so proficient in the primary school that they reached sixth standard before attaining the age of fourteen. Of course, there is no compulsion in regard to our technical schools as there should be, if this were part of a considered scheme, as it ought to be. What is the result of our present system? We give no assistance to these boys and girls to get into particular trades, so that they may become useful citizens. You can imagine the position of boys or girls in our city to-day who have reached fourth or fifth standard. That means that they are able to read and nothing more. Some of them may be able to write, but it will be found that they have no great proficiency in that respect. They go around looking for employment. They find that the different places they visit are not anxious to avail of their assistance. After they have been going around like that for some months, they get disheartened and in many cases they become exceedingly undesirable citizens. In many instances they are a trouble to their parents, and they cause trouble in other ways as well, because they are running wild and under no obligation to do anything. When they reach the age of sixteen, they come within the scope of the Unemployment Insurance Act. If they have not got employment they are bound to do a certain amount of work at a technical school. What do we find when they go to the technical school? We find that in the case of girls there is illiteracy to the extent of almost ten per cent. in our city. That is to say, that ten per cent. of the girls who attain the age of sixteen and who apply for unemployment grant cannot be assisted by the technical schools when they go there to fulfil the educational qualification attached to the grant, because they are illiterate. Those are all problems arising out of this question of the school-leaving age. That question is one of the most important that can be considered by the Dáil. One of the results of the present system, as I have pointed out on previous occasions, is that in my own trade we have a great shortage of skilled labour and an immense amount of unskilled labour, for which there is no employment whatever. A great many of those who are at present leaving our schools are driven into that mass of unskilled labour and they will never be able to do anything useful for themselves or for anybody else. They will either live on the Poor Law or on the dole or something of that character all their lives. This measure does not deal with the question systematically and, while one welcomes it, one must confess that it does not deal with the problem as it ought to be dealt with. It does not deal with the problem as the problem has been dealt with in other progressive countries. I handed to the Minister within the last few days a proposal which has been taken up in Scotland.

Recognising there the difficulty that arises from their educational system— which I agree with Deputy O'Connell is not at all up to date—they have appointed a Commission of representative men connected with industry, and it is representative also of the various trade unions to enquire into this problem of education in its relation to industry. A similar Commission was set up in England some months ago on identical terms with the same object. This Commission is to deal with the very problem which I have been stressing in this House for some months, and which, to my mind, is more urgent in this country than in either England or Scotland, because of the difficulty of getting into these trades. It is not alone that trade unions have got to share a portion of the blame, but I am sorry to say that employers also are lax with regard to apprenticeship. I would like to see apprenticeship put on a different basis to that upon which it is to-day. It is only a fortunate person who can get apprenticed to-day, instead of having things so arranged that any boy or girl who has a particular bent for a certain trade could get into that trade and make the best use of the qualities which nature gave to that particular boy or girl. I have said enough to show the seriousness of this problem, but, as I said when I started, I am sorry we are not considering a proposal of this kind as part of a considered scheme of education, instead of taking it up as a separate unit. In these days we hear a great deal of what Germany and America can teach us, and I am quite sure that they could teach us a great deal in the matter of education. I would gladly support any proposal whereby the leading men in connection with primary, secondary, technical, and university education, both in Germany and America, could come over and be paid to report on a system of education suited to this country. I would gladly, and I am sure the country also would, support any expenditure of that kind. Having got reports from the experts in these two countries, we could then get a committee here to settle the whole system. That would be the proper way to approach this problem instead of doing it in this wretched piece-meal fashion.

The criticisms of Deputy Good are welcome. It would be highly desirable to have a complete ideal scheme, and by ideal I think he means a proper scheme, fitted to the needs of the country, which should be placed before us in its entirety. That would, I think, lead to some interesting results. The actual proposal before us is to deal with school attendance, and we have been reminded very properly that there has been a long demand to deal with that particular aspect of our educational problem, and the proper demand in that direction did not suggest that we should make provision for school attendance a portion of any large and comprehensive scheme covering the whole ground of education. Deputies would, I think, if they made enquiry, find that the Department of Education is not badly informed with regard to the conditions of education in other countries. On the contrary, it is particularly well informed, and has always taken the trouble to be particularly well informed, in regard to these conditions, but I think we shall have to solve our own educational problems. I think they are of such a kind that while we might obtain valuable suggestions and valuable light by bringing experts from Germany, America, or elsewhere, they would find themselves in touch here with an educational problem of which they had no previous experience whatever, and as regards which they possibly would not be our best advisers. If we were to bring educational experts from other countries with experience of well-developed systems of education in those countries, I am quite sure that the first main conclusion they would come to, and it is one that has not been touched on in any remarks made on this particular measure up to the present, would be that in order to reach anything like the right degree of efficiency in our education we should have to double, if not treble, our present expenditure on education.

I will point out that this Bill as it stands with its limitations is automatically going to cause a considerable increase in expenditure. The various suggestions with regard to what should be done will, I am sure, be welcome. In the case of the Education Department, practically all these suggestions that have been made along the lines of improvement are simply driving a willing horse. There is a suggestion that a system of continuation schools after the leaving age, whether it be 14, 15 or 16, should be provided. The Education Department will say, "Certainly let it be done," and will say the same with regard to other suggestions, including that to the effect that where technical education is applicable it should be made compulsory on all those who are brought within the range of it. It has been quite rightly pointed out, and personally I am not sorry for it, that the application of this measure as it stands, within its limits, is going to bring more acutely before the people of this country other aspects of our educational problem.

Some of these have been dealt with here, such as the proper provision of food for school children, the proper provision of clothing and food, and provision for heating and equipping schools, as well as the provision of conveyance to bring the children to and from school, and even the proper provision of schools themselves. In the city of Dublin, when this Bill comes into force, the city is going to be faced with the problem of school accommodation, a very difficult problem, and every single one of these questions has its financial aspect. Every one of these improvements means providing more money out of either local or general taxation. I hold, and most Deputies will hold, and it is a very comfortable doctrine to hold and express, that we could have no better investment for our money. Every reasonable parent knows that, but we are in a particular stage at present with regard to national finance, and a particular stage with regard to national credit, and we cannot possibly leave that aspect of the thing out of account. Raise the age limit, and that means raising still more the number of those attending the schools, and creating a still more acute problem.

Raising the school age does not mean that the age of attendance will apply to national schools. It may apply to a scheme of technical education, for instance.

I understood the question of raising the school age meant raising the age of attendance at the present schools. However, every extension of that kind must eventually be faced from the point of view of financial provision. I believe that we are not spending enough money on education. I believe that public opinion in this country is not, I will not say sufficiently enlightened, but I think the ordinary man would agree to it at once that it would be a wise thing, but while agreeing that it would be a wise thing it is doubtful whether he is prepared to agree in substance, that is, whether he is prepared to take his part in footing the bill and imposing the necessary taxation on himself and his fellow-citizens. I think it is very satisfactory to hear the views expressed that this Bill is of general and equal interest to every section of Deputies in the Dáil—I suppose I might say to every individual Deputy. It has no party complexion whatever; it has no sectional complexion whatever, and I am quite certain amendments that may be proposed will be considered absolutely on their merits. I have been accused sometimes of the crime of being an idealist, and as an idealist I take the liberty of reminding Deputies again that along with the practical application of this Bill they will have to consider—they will ultimately perhaps more seriously have to consider—the financial aspects involved and face up to them. It would be pleasanter, I am sure, for the Department of Education to present you with a Bill so that criticisms would deal with the opposite direction; that is to say, members of the Dáil would be restraining the Department of Education in its natural desire to go as far as it could in these matters. It has sought to present a measure dealing with the circumstances as it finds them, and as it is likely to be practicable and deal with them in the time in which we are now.

It has been stated that all parties in the House are in agreement on this question, and as no expression of opinion has been given from these benches, I want to confirm what has been said by saying that we are in agreement with regard to this measure. Most people are opposed to coercion in any form, and we on these benches are opposed to it, but we are faced with the necessity for coercion in this case. Anybody who knows the country knows that children are deliberately kept at home through the direct agency of their parents, and they must recognise the fact that compulsion is absolutely necessary to deal with a certain section of the community. Because of that we whole-heartedly accept the measure. A good deal of play has been made with regard to the age limit. We consider that the 14 years age limit is reasonable, and a high enough limit for primary education.

It has been suggested that the age limit should be raised. If it is raised let it be raised in order to give the children technical education, something to fit them for the battle of life. We were told that our technical schools all over the country are fully staffed and badly attended. The staffs are there, costing the same amount of money with a very small attendance as if there was a full attendance. We are not prepared to support any extension of the age limit for primary education. These matters can be argued out and dealt with on the Committee stage. We want a nation of workers, and we do not want a nation of pen wielders and politicians. Reference has been made to the periods for putting in and gathering crops. Anybody who knows agriculture knows that in the period for putting in crops there is scarcely any use at all for children of school-going age at that particular time. In the late spring or early summer the children would be of much more use for the weeding and thinning, and later for gathering in the crops. The vacation period would cover the time I am referring to—the gathering in and thinning—especially when we are all growing beet. We are in thorough agreement with the measure. We welcome it and we welcome its general principles. Some reference has been made to a free vote of the House, and Deputies turned towards those benches when there was mention made of a free vote. As far as we are concerned, there has always been a free vote.

As free a vote as you wish?

No, a free vote has always been the case. There is no Party in the House that has put on the Whips, kept them on and got as good a response for so doing, as the Government Party. I am glad to say that their discipline is a model to the House in that respect. I repeat that if a higher age limit than 14 years is needed, there is little trouble in placing the matter before the House. A Bill of one clause will raise the age limit, if raising it is considered necessary. There is no necessity for Deputy O'Connell to put forward the plea that the age limit of 16 years should be embodied in the Bill. If the necessity arises, and if it is proved to the satisfaction of Deputies that the age limit ought to be raised, a one-clause Bill will remedy the evil, if there is an evil. I think there is agreement amongst all parties in regard to this measure.

I think the point Deputy Gorey intended to make was that if the Government could, by some method of peaceful persuasion, get the children to school with the same facility and ease as the Government Party get Deputies into the lobby to vote, there would be no necessity for this Bill. I am in agreement with Deputy Gorey, and with a great many other Deputies, that the purpose of the Bill is a laudable purpose. There is no controversy about the purpose of the measure, but there is about the machinery. It is the machinery of the measure that is questioned and, perhaps, one will be allowed to make some points with reference to the machinery.

Deputy O'Connell told us the school year was too short. The inference in his remarks was that there were not enough days devoted to school purposes in the year. He deprecated, and I am inclined to deprecate the two sub-sections in Section 4 of the Bill. I wonder why Deputy O'Connell did not also advocate the abolition of the whole holiday of Saturday. When children are sent to more expensive schools, where parents have to pay for the education, they do not get a full holiday on Saturday. They get a half-holiday on Saturday and sometimes a half-holiday during the week. I would sooner see that in vogue here. It is, I believe, a better system. As it is, you have children two whole days away from school. A good deal of what they learn goes out of their heads during Saturday and Sunday and the greater part of Monday is spent in putting it in again.

With regard to raising the school-leaving age, I may say I am in favour of that, and I was very much impressed by Deputy Professor MacNeill's remark. I am glad the Minister for Industry and Commerce is in charge of the Bill. It is really very largely an economic question. When you have an overcrowded labour market, a serious problem of unemployment, as you have now, and when you have a considerable number drawing unemployment benefit, would it not, economically, be a good thing to take boys from 14 to 16 years of age off the labour market and give them additional education? Would it not be better to have the money spent on education than on the dole? That presupposes two conditions: that there are schools for them and that there are teachers for them. There is not the slightest use sending those boys to sit at benches in an overcrowded school, when there is nobody to attend them. That is pure humbug, camouflage, or whatever you like to call it. If the schools and teachers are available, and if it is merely a question of providing necessary funds to enable the children to continue their education, I believe the money would be better spent on that than by paying unemployment benefit. That is the predominant consideration.

There is another feature in this Bill that, I think, will be difficult to work. That is the differentiation between children who live two miles from a school and children who live three miles. A child who lives more than two miles from the school need not attend school until he is ten years of age. I am taking a boy as an example; I am not proposing any sex differentiation on the lines of the Civil Service Bill. Taking a boy as an illustration, we will assume he goes to school when he is aged ten years and two months. Having learned nothing, he finds himself sitting at a bench by the side of a boy 6 or 7 years of age, who already spent, perhaps, one year in the school. Is that boy of 10 years and 2 months going to get the best out of education? I ask Deputy O'Connell, as a practical teacher, is it an easy situation for the teacher where you have the 10-year-old boy or girl, absolutely ignorant, sitting down by the side of children two years younger than themselves but who know more than they do?

My knowledge of education is more or less that of an outsider; but it seemed to me to create a difficulty. It seems to me the children who live more than two miles from the school will start at a disadvantage, and that disadvantage will continue throughout their school age. The problem is admittedly a very difficult one. Having regard to the teacher's point of view, it would be better to have a fixed distance and a fixed age for all children, even if it meant greater exemptions.

I am afraid the section in reference to miles will discourage the amalgamation of schools. If transport can be provided, it is desirable to amalgamate schools where you have a large number of small schools. The matter of amalgamation appeals to me particularly, because in the greater part of the country districts—the portion of the country especially that I have knowledge of—they are all small schools; they are inevitably so. You can get more efficient teaching if you get the children into one fairly large central school.

In my opinion, the wording of the compulsory provision, which sets out that a child must be within two miles of a school before he can be forced to attend under the age of ten years, and within three miles of the school before he can be forced to attend within the school age at all, will rather discourage amalgamation, because the amalgamated school will not be able to get its attendance. The conditions imposed in the Bill are all right if suitable means of conveyance are available. Suitable means of conveyance are not available in the country districts unless somebody makes provision for the conveyance of youngsters, and there is no machinery under this Bill to provide suitable means of conveyance.

The School Attendance Committees in the rural areas, who might possibly have provided conveyances in spite of scarcity of means—they might do it voluntarily or in some other way— have been dissolved, swept away. I have an anxious feeling that some of the provisions of the Bill are rather retrograde; they will not promote education, but will rather tend to retard its development. In regard to the question of education, there are two duties to be considered. There is the duty of the parent to see that his child gets a fair chance in life. That duty is provided for in this Bill, and provided for amply. The penalties are sufficient and substantial. The machinery for enforcement is, I think, effective. But there is another duty besides the duty of the parent, and that is the duty of the State to see that the child whose parent is forced to send it to school receives its education under the best possible conditions, and sustains no injury, mentally or physically.

The late Minister for Education almost admitted our case when he said this Bill would cause the leaks in the system to be found out. There are schools in this country not hygienic; there are schools not adequately clean and not adequately heated. We are taking upon ourselves a very serious responsibility when we compel parents to send their children to these schools. I think the Bill would be better if it recognised that liability on the part of the State, the duty on the part of the State, as well as the duty on the part of the parent.

I would like to support the plea made by Deputy Sir James Craig. I know many men who approach this problem solely from the medical point of view and solely from the point of view of the specialist, and who view with anxiety the length of school hours in the country districts during which children get no food. I am not dealing with the exceptional cases Deputy Byrne and Deputy Morrissey put forward of parents unable to give the children breakfast. Even where a child has had a breakfast, quite a good breakfast, at home, that child leaves the home at 8 o'clock in the morning and very often does not get home until 4 o'clock in the afternoon without meal of any kind. That cannot be good for a growing child. It will, no doubt, cost money. The more I look at this question the more I see the need for better school equipment, the provision of meals and so on, and the more I am forced to the conclusion that we will have to bring in other resources besides the resources of the State.

Deputy O'Connell said that England, in matters of education, was one of the least progressive countries in the world. I can only say that in England I saw the schools that were provided for out of rates, and I saw the schools in the Irish districts provided for out of State funds. I wish that we were even level with the schools that I saw in England. I saw schools through Devonshire and elsewhere in the South of England; I saw in my own county in Ireland thatched schools with dripping eaves that were more like a barn than a school—buildings one would almost hesitate to put a cow into. I do not think the problem can be solved by State help alone. You must co-ordinate rate help with State help, and in doing so you must not lose sight of the necessity for some sort of a meal for the children during the day. It would be a bad day's work if we were to develop the children's brains at the cost of their bodies.

It is very reassuring to find a Bill of this type has met with such a response from all sections of the Dáil. As I imagined, whatever discussion there has been, has centred mainly around the point of age, and it gravitated to the subsidiary and tender point of the exemptions, and such matters as reasonable excuses which may be allowed to prevail where absence is proved. Deputy Hewat raised one point which no other Deputy adverted to, or, where it was adverted to, the point was made rather in an opposite way. Deputy Hewat objected to—not so much objected as queried— the use of the Gárda Síochána as the enforcing authority. He expressed a hope that regulations might be made governing the conduct of the Gárda in so far as they were now being placed in a position where they might interfere in some ways with the liberties of the people.

I think Deputy Hewat can hardly have properly understood what is set out in the provisions of the Bill. There is very little touch really between the Gárda Síochána and the parents in this matter. The parents are required to do certain things. The teachers in the schools are required to do certain things. The enforcing authority may call for certain other matters, and the enforcing authority has a right, which no one, I think, will deny is an ordinary police duty, of bringing before a court of competent jurisdiction those who have not complied with the provisions of this Bill. But there is very little touch in the matter of interference as between the enforcing authority and the parents. If anybody gets the view from this Bill that there is going to be some sort of secret inquisition going on by the Gárda Síochána in opposition to the parents, then that nowhere lies in the Bill, and that idea simply springs from not properly understanding what it means.

Deputy Hewat also queries compulsion of any sort, although he rather admits that the figures in regard to the attendance at school somewhat proves the necessity for compulsion. To other Deputies these figures undoubtedly establish a case for compulsion. Deputy Hewat was arguing why should there be any compulsion in this matter. The answer to that seems to lie in the defects of our human nature. If one could rely on the social conscience of the child or on the social conscience of the parents to ensure that the child would be sent to school, then compulsion would be an unwarranted interference. But the figures show that these cannot be relied on. Any discussion on the Bill has centred round the question of the age exemptions and excuses. Deputy Sir James Craig made, I think, a mistake, at least it seemed to me he was making a mistake, when he seemed to understand from this measure that it forbids the child to attend school over the age of fourteen. If that is as he puts the point it is of course wrong. The Bill simply provides for compulsory attendance up to a particular age. Beyond that age nothing is said. There is certainly no forbidding of attendance beyond that period.

The question of the raising of the school limit from 14 to 16 is one I feel we should fight out in Committee when definite amendments come before us and when we get the points segregated. Apart from other matters dealt with by Deputy Professor MacNeill, he indicated some objection likely to be put forward here when any move is made to have the age increased. The financial objection is the main one, and when that is urged there is no use in Deputies shaking their heads and saying "the Minister for Finance again." There is a period in the year when the Minister for Finance becomes a lovable person so far as this Dáil is concerned, that is the period round about Budget time. During the rest of the period he is to be avoided. He is a person who closes down on everything. That only means that the Minister for Finance is doing his duty in so far as he is trying to save people from a certain amount of taxation. If the country is ready through ordinary taxation or through local taxation to submit to further exactions, a great deal more can be done in the way of education, a great deal more which will probably meet, in the abstract, with the approval of every member of the community, but which will meet with considerable disfavour when these advantages have to be paid for. Before those points do come up for discussion in Committee, I wonder if Deputy O'Connell would mind furnishing to the Department the figures he has with regard to the age limit in other countries, because I had a series of calculations made as to the age limits in other countries and they were in distinct contradiction to some of the ages as read by the Deputy. I would like if he could give us those particulars later—I do not require them now—so that we may compare them with our figures and have correct data for the House on the next occasion.

Mr. O'CONNELL

The information I got was obtained mainly from a publication issued by the International Labour Office, called "A Technical Survey of Agricultural Questions." I am sure that publication is available to the Minister.

I have got now the information I really required. What I wanted really was the source of the Deputy's information, so that the figures could be looked up and compared with our figures. I may say, however, that I do not entirely rely on anything that comes from other countries, because there is a special problem here, a problem which is possibly not peculiar to this country, but which is peculiar to this country with several other countries of an agricultural type. Where you have a scattered little rural population, technical school education is not going to reach them and the question really to be considered is the question of post-primary rural education. Deputy O'Connell, when speaking on this subject, seemed to me to be pleading merely for the raising of the age-limit to sixteen. When Deputy MacNeill was speaking, on intervention, it seemed to me that Deputy O'Connell was rather aiming at the setting up of something to provide for education as between fourteen and sixteen, which might fall within the provisions of this Act, if enlarged to sixteen years—in other words, that Deputy O'Connell was aiming at enlarging the age of fourteen to sixteen in this measure and allowing a reasonable excuse to be that the child was receiving elementary or other education somewhere else, thus allowing for a system of post-primary or continuation education to be fitted in under a Bill of this sort.

Mr. O'CONNELL

That was my intention.

That is again a matter we can deal with on Committee Stage—the question of the joining together of this Bill and of post-primary education or of something that would be within the primary education system if the age here be increased to sixteen. It has been suggested that this question should be left to a free vote. I do not think there would be any great objection to doing that. I would only plead, in return for that, that there should be some arrangement of Parties whereby—if only to break the monotony of the affair—other Parties besides the Government Party would split when it is a question of free voting.

You had that on the motion—"That the Dáil approve of the policy of the Minister for Education." The Farmers' Party split on that.

It has also been pleaded that sub-sections 3 and 4 should be just an alternative under the Bill and should apply, not to children who have attained the age of ten years, but only to children who have attained the age of twelve years. That, again, is a matter for Committee pleading and for Committee answer. I cannot see any objection on principle to that. But I can see a point that will go to the root of most of these amendments. The question raised by Deputy Good with regard to the recognition of sickness as a reasonable excuse is a much more difficult one. You have to admit definitely that sickness would ordinarily form a reasonable excuse for non-attendance at school. The Deputy has indicated certain amendments which he may offer to limit that. There are certain things set out which may be looked upon as reasonable excuses but the onus is on the parent, or person having custody of the child, to prove that there was a reasonable excuse. It is laid down in Section 17, sub-section 4, that a certificate from a qualified medical practitioner will be accepted, prima facie, as evidence that there was such reasonable excuse. That does not necessarily mean that in every case a certificate from a qualified medical practitioner will be required. It should be taken rather as showing what may operate in the mind of the District Justice before whom cases of this sort would come—that the question of sickness is not to be taken in just the lightest way and that definite proof should be given of sickness of such a type as would be reasonable to excuse nonattendance.

The questions as to food, clothing, distance from school and conveyance are rather outside the terms of this measure. The provision of meals for children is at present under the charge of the Local Government Department. As far as present regulations go, provision of such meals is permitted only in urban districts; so that if anything is to be done in regard to that the amendment of certain existing legislation will have to be carried through.

Deputy Mulcahy mentioned a point as to the leaving certificate. He thought that it would facilitate the enforcing authority if there were a requirement with regard to a leaving certificate. What I am going to say on this point brings me rather to the point raised by Deputy Good, who complained that this measure was only one item and that, instead of that, we should have a whole comprehensive system and survey of education. There is being considered at the moment the whole question of a leaving certificate in connection with primary education. No decision has been reached on it. Similarly in regard to one of the points brought forward by Deputy Good. The whole matter of technical education is very definitely under consideration. I wonder would Deputy O'Connell, or any other Deputy, raise a protest if I offered to withdraw this Compulsory School Attendance Bill until such time as we were able to bring in a programme with regard to technical instruction and the leaving certificate.

Mr. O'CONNELL

I certainly would.

I think every Deputy who has considered the matter would. That is the excuse, if excuse is necessary, for taking this as a single unit instead of having a whole comprehensive survey. This is a very urgent matter. It may seem impertinence for me to state that, but it is urgent. Is it to be delayed so that other matters can be brought in along with it? I have a certain amount of sympathy with Deputy Good in what he said. I have had occasion to meet Deputy Good acting on a Juvenile Advisory Committee. I know of his very keen interest in technical education, and I know of his great desire to help in any question of the sort. He has more than once spoken to me on the question that he alluded to to-night— the question of finding employment for children who are thrown into the world and abandoned, so far as the State is concerned, at the age of fourteen. He mentioned as a possible suggestion at the end that a committee might be set up here as in England and Scotland to inquire into certain matters, and he rather urged that we should invoke foreign assistance in the matter of education. That may come. All I can say to the Dáil in answer to that is that the time is not ripe for that yet. The whole question of technical instruction, continuation and vocational instruction has been considered by the Department in two aspects, and only recently has the Departmental Committee dealing with the matter furnished a report. That report had to be surveyed by three other Departments before the matter could be considered finished. At the moment the report furnished to the Department of Education by certain of its officials is under consideration by my own Department, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Fisheries. When their views have been collected then, and only then, will it be possible to say whether any committee such as Deputy Good suggested is required for the further consideration of what these people have sent forward. I do not believe there is much use at this moment in my going into arguments for or against raising the age from 14 to 16. That is purely and entirely a matter for the Committee Stage, and unless there be some definite desire on the part of the Dáil to have these points discussed, I prefer to leave them until we deal with the Bill in Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

I suggest that the Committee Stage be fixed for next Wednesday.

I think Deputies would want another week.

I understand that the Bill has been in Deputies' hands for 8 days. If the Deputy desires a longer period, I have no objection, but the Government must not be criticised for not having business for next Wednesday.

Would the Minister be prepared to say Tuesday week?

Would the Minister take the Committee Stage next Friday?

If next Thursday would suit Deputies the Committee Stage might fit in then with a proper programme.

Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, December 10th.
Top
Share