Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 5 Feb 1926

Vol. 14 No. 6

SCHOOL ATTENDANCE BILL, 1925—THIRD STAGE.

Section 2, Amendment 2, resumed.

Mr. JOHNSON

The effect of this amendment, as I tried to explain last night, will be to set forth that so far as the Legislature is concerned, it is to be enacted that every person up to sixteen years of age will be expected to undergo a course of instruction. It is not an amendment which will prevent boys or girls from obtaining employment for pay after fourteen years of age. Some of us may wish that that will, eventually, be the case, but the effect of this amendment will be to require that every boy and girl shall undergo a systematic course of instruction of some sort, up to the age of sixteen years; that is to say that, if employed after fourteen years, they will be required to undergo some instruction of a systematic kind, of a kind approved by the Minister, for a number of hours per year, notwithstanding the fact that they are in employment. If a boy or girl is apprenticed to any trade or business or profession, then also that would be taken to be a course of systematic education and they will not be required to attend the ordinary school. If attending a technical school or a post-elementary school, that also would be considered to be part of the instruction which is required for every boy and girl. The effect will be—what I think everybody in theory supports— that systematic instruction shall be the lot of every boy and girl, up to sixteen years of age at any rate. It also requires, if this amendment is carried, that being allowed to leave school at fourteen should be subject to a certain standard of proficiency in education being reached. That, I take it, is a matter of very general acceptance. We are not going to assume that children who have attended school up to the age of fourteen are in a position to leave school without having attained a moderate standard of efficiency. Otherwise no advantage is being derived from any proposal to compel children to attend school.

I think it is accepted, very generally too, that the years from 12 or 13 to 16 or 17 are the years when it is particularly necessary, for the fuller development of the character and brain of the child, that there should be regular instruction, and that the habit of learning—if one may put it that way —the habit of application should be and can only be engendered during those years. It is because we have been loose in that regard that so many of the boys and girls of the elementary schools in the past have lost all touch with tuition and educational methods, and when, at the age of sixteen, they come to trades or occupations, they are found to have lost very much of the education they acquired up to the age of 12 or 13. It is during those three or four years that retrogression takes place. I hope that it will be generally accepted that a different standard should be the normal. We know, as a matter of practice, that very large numbers of the boys of the country do go to school up to 16 years of age, especially in rural areas. In practice, this particular provision will have effect more in the towns than in the rural areas. There is no hardship entailed upon anyone by this unless you are going to argue that boys of 14 to 16 should be allowed to run wild or free, whether they are employed or not.

The real effect of this amendment would be to ensure that if boys are not in employment, they will be at school, and if they are in employment that they should, in addition, be receiving some systematic instruction. I think that that proposition should commend itself to the Dáil, and I think that it is of the utmost importance that it should be laid down in this enactment that that is the intention of the Legislature. It is better to do it by that means and leave any remissions or adjustments to meet the particular state of the country and to meet the educational facilities of the country, to be relaxed somewhat by the Minister for Education, rather than, as has been suggested, that we should limit the compulsory attendance to fourteen and then allow tightening up at later stages.

It is much more important that the Legislature should lay down that the normal period of systematic instruction should continue to sixteen years of age and then if, to meet temporary and local circumstances, there is any modification of the rigid application, it should be by the Minister's action rather than the other way round. I hope the Dáil will affirm this proposition that in the future the children of this country will be expected to undergo systematic instruction until they arrive at the age of sixteen.

Mr. WILSON

I have long held the opinion that the age of sixteen is the minimum school-leaving age which the Department should insist upon. I foresee, however, great difficulties in carrying out a compulsory Act enforcing attendance on children of that age. Your buildings will not be suitable, and I doubt if your teaching powers will be sufficient. Nevertheless, I am satisfied to vote for the extension in this Bill of compulsory attendance up to sixteen. I know many of the parents in the country send their children to school until they are sixteen. I know it is more the rule than the exception; but, unfortunately, it is chiefly those who are the children of the poorer element of the community and for whom instruction is more necessary than the children of those in a fortunate position, whose education is neglected at present. If by the extension of the age to sixteen you will be able to get in those now neglected, I think it will tend to the production of better citizens in the future. The call of the age is for more education. From those benches we have pointed to the necessity for better education, and we still shall support the efforts of the Minister to establish, in rural areas, suitable technical schools. We will support any expenditure in that direction, limited as the resources of farming are at present. We know it is essential, and possibly improvements will be made which will make it unnecessary for the inhabitants of rural areas to expend forty to sixty pounds on each child in order to send him up to the secondary schools in Dublin. If you provide us with this secondary education in the country we will support and help you.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I am sorry to say that, although I do not differ from my colleague, Deputy Wilson, in the ideals to be aimed at, I differ from him with regard to the practicability of enforcing such a law if it were passed. I think it is one thing to be idealistic and it is another thing to take cognisance of the actual financial conditions of the country. My view is, that we should start off with the minimum of compulsion in every direction, and as we gain experience in time in the working of the Act, and see the advantages we are to gain by the Act, then there is nothing to prevent our expanding if the necessities of the case require it.

As I read this amendment it means that in effect all children, unless they have been granted a certificate of proficiency and have also been apprenticed to some trade, are forced to attend school. This means in effect that the children of the farmers, who would not be apprenticed in the ordinary course of events, who would be employed at home on the farm, or if they happened to be workers' children they might be employed as paid workers on the farm, would not come within this category and would be obliged to attend school. I maintain that is not an economic proposition. Parents in this country would be unable, in most cases, to keep their children at school beyond the age of fourteen.

Mr. JOHNSON

The amendment is quite clear, but the Deputy is under a misapprehension. If the boy is employed he would be required to attend a course of instruction. It may be a series of lectures by a departmental instructor.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I regard that as practically the same as attending school. If the course of instruction were not available there would then be no option but to attend the ordinary school. We heard arguments yesterday from Deputy O'Connell and statements regarding school attendance in other countries, with particular reference, I think, to Ontario. I have gone to the trouble to look up the school attendance ages in many other countries outside the continent of America. I find in a great many cases the leaving age is fourteen. In some cases it is thirteen, and in a good many other cases the compulsory commencing age is seven. If we are to regard this matter in its proper perspective we ought not to pick out special cases, but consider the problem as a whole and deal with a good many of the places affected. I found that in Columbia the limits of age were seven and fourteen; in the province of Manitoba they were seven and fifteen; in New Brunswick they were seven and twelve; in Nova Scotia they were seven and fourteen; in Prince Edward Island they were seven and thirteen, and in Saskatchewan they were seven and fourteen. Most of the ages I have quoted are within the limits I have suggested in my amendment of seven and fourteen.

I maintain, in dealing with an agricultural country as this is, it is not extravagant to ask that the age be confined within seven and fourteen. When we take European countries, we find in Austria the limits are six and fourteen, and in Bulgaria seven and thirteen. In Denmark—the country we are told to look up to and to emulate in our agricultural, co-operative and educational methods—we find the limits of age are seven and fourteen. In Denmark the Danish farmers have been able to attain to the great heights of agricultural prosperity to which we are told they have attained, despite the age limit of seven to fourteen. Then you have in Finland seven and thirteen. In France you have six and thirteen. In Germany it varies according to the provinces, but in Bavaria you have six to thirteen.

Mr. GOOD

What about continuation schools?

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

He is forgetting all about them. They are not in the picture.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I can read out a list of places showing that the compulsory ages do not exceed thirteen, and in some places fourteen. There are circumstances in which children would have to attend school compulsorily up to sixteen. If they did not attend compulsorily they would have to attend continuation or other classes of that type, or in the alternative be apprenticed to some employment or trade. Those who are not in a position to attend those classes or who are not apprenticed to an employment or trade, will be by compulsion forced to attend an ordinary school up to sixteen years of age. I think we are trying to advance too quickly, and I ask the Dáil not to support this amendment.

Mr. GOOD

There seems to be a wrong conception in the Dáil with regard to this amendment. I think that that has been made quite obvious in the speech we have just listened to. May I read the amendment again? It says:—"To delete all words after the word "and" at the end of line 2. and substitute the following words:—"who is not more than 16 years of age" and to add at the end of the section a sub-section as follow:—(2) A child who has attained the age of fourteen years and has attained the sixth standard shall not on producing satisfactory evidence of having obtained suitable employment be called upon to attend the Primary school while so employed. Where satisfactory evidence of employment is not forthcoming the pupil shall when the Minister so directs be required to attend either a primary school, a continuation school or a technical school up to the age of sixteen years." That, in essence, means that attendance at a primary school is compulsory until a certain standard of education is attained.

Mr. BAXTER

Even up to 20 years of age?

Mr. GOOD

If that standard has not been attained at the age of 14, it has to be attained, and a certificate to that effect has to be got before a boy or girl leaves a primary school. I think every Deputy will agree with that. If a standard is fixed it will be the object of every boy and girl to achieve it at the earliest possible moment. If no standard is fixed, there is no object in view. I think that in education, as in everything else, an object, or policy, is an essential factor to success. Having so far tried to make the amendment clear, let me further point out that the fixing of the age provides, to my mind, one of the most important matters that we have discussed in this Dáil. On it depends the standard of education. On our standard of education depends the efficiency of our young people, and on the efficiency of our young people the whole prosperity of the State is dependent. The Minister for Finance may tell us that the prosperity of the State depends upon tariffs. On the other hand, Deputy Johnson may tell us that the prosperity of the State depends upon the payment of high wages. I am satisfied that neither of these policies will bring prosperity. Prosperity can only be obtained by high efficiency, based on a high standard of education possessed by our workpeople. Further, on high efficiency depends low costs of production which are the most essential factors to-day. As I pointed out yesterday and on previous occasions, our country has to compete in the keenest markets in the world, and its success depends upon its ability to beat all comers in those markets. As I said, efficiency is the basis of low costs of production, and I am satisfied that if our country, and those who are engaged in agriculture, are to hold their position in those markets, they can only do so in one way, and that is through a higher standard of education and through a higher efficiency consequent on that standard of education. There is no use in telling us that it can be done this way or the other way. I am satisfied from my experience in industry—the same is true of agriculture—that you cannot compete against other countries which possess a higher standard of efficiency amongst their workpeople. The only way you can compete successfully is to try to attain to the same, if not to a higher standard than that possessed by those against whom you have to compete. I would like to hear the views of Deputies on the Farmers' Benches on that particular statement.

Mr. BAXTER

We agree with you.

Mr. GOOD

If you agree with me on that statement, then you must agree with the policy that underlies the amendment, as the two things are synonymous. You cannot achieve efficiency or success on any other road. That is the one road that will lead to success. I am satisfied that the falling-off in our export trade is attributable to the causes I have mentioned.

Mr. WILSON

Not a bit of it.

Mr. GOOD

It has been stated over and over again by those who are thoughtful in the agricultural industry that if they are to achieve better marketing of their goods and better standards amongst their goods, they can only do so by getting a better standard of education amongst the workpeople employed in agriculture.

Mr. BAXTER

That is one way; but did you ever see people who are well educated and who will not work?

Mr. GOOD

That is so; but on the other hand I have seen well-educated people who work with greater efficiency as a result of a higher standard of education. If some of us accompanied Deputy Johnson and other Deputies on their recent trip to America we would have seen on every hand examples of that fact. America is an outstanding example of efficiency based on education.

Mr. WILSON

In farming?

Mr. GOOD

What is the position in regard to our own city in relation to this amendment. A report of a conference which was held in Dublin in 1917 states amongst other things:—

"No doubt was left in the mind of any member attending the conference that the great question to be solved before technical education could accomplish its work was to secure that the student received a more thorough primary education. Employers and technical education authorities were unanimous in stating that 75 per cent. of the lads entering industrial life were unable to pass the simple qualifying examination necessary to enter technical schools. Employers testified that skilled tradesmen were often unfit to be sent to work in the country because of their inability to keep the simplest accounts or to write legible letters clearly expressing their business, not to mention shortcomings in other directions essential to their efficiency."

In other words, that the efficiency was retarded by the low standard of primary education which they had. That was in 1917. I am glad to be able to read that report, because it shows the state of things that existed before this Government came into existence. I do not blame our Government for the backward state of education to-day. What is the position to-day in our city, having this amendment in view? Over 6,000 boys and girls leave our primary schools every year about the age of fourteen. Of those, some 6,000 register for employment at the labour exchanges. The labour exchanges are only able to find employment for something less that 1,000. Let us assume that another 2,000 find employment by other means. It is a fairly optimistic estimate to take, when the labour exchanges can only find employment for 1,000. Taking that optimistic estimate, what does it mean? That 3,000 boys and girls are set free in our city every year for whom there is no employment, with the result that we hear complaint after complaint from parents about these boys and girls getting into bad company and acquiring bad habits with disastrous results.

What will this amendment do for those boys and girls? For those in employment, it will mean that the Minister will decide upon what classes or what further course it is desirable that they should follow up to the age of 16. For those who are not in employment, the Minister will also settle what hours of attendance they shall follow up to the age of 16. I have only given the figures for Dublin. Deputies can get the figures for their own areas and apply exactly the same argument. With regard to Dublin I would ask: is it a desirable thing that those boys and girls, upon whom the future of the country depends, should have their education continued during those important years between the ages of fourteen and sixteen, or should they be set free to go to picture houses, to get into bad company, to give trouble to their parents, and to make wretched citizens? To my mind, this is one of the most important matters in connection with education.

There is only one other remark that I should like to make in connection with this amendment. The Minister for Finance yesterday drew our attention to the large expenditure that will accrue if the proposals in the amendments to this Bill were carried out. He mentioned a large sum; I suppose he has some basis for that, but he has not given us that basis, and I should like to see it. Deputy Baxter yesterday told us that a higher standard of education is necessary and desirable, but that we cannot afford it. I have tried to point out, as one who has some experience of business, that depression in industry is largely brought about by the low standard of education. If that depression continues, are we likely to be in any better position to afford the expenditure that is necessary to reach that state of efficiency, which Deputy Baxter says is desirable, in a few years when trade is in a very much worse position than it is to-day? Deputy Baxter says it is desirable to reach that efficiency, but that the country cannot afford it. Are we likely to be in a better position to afford it five years hence, when the trade of the country is further depleted, and we have possibly lost the market on which our basic industry is dependent? These are factors that must be considered.

No Deputy is more convinced than I am that rigid economy is necessary for the welfare of the country. There are things to which economy can be applied usefully and successfully. On the other hand, there are things to which economy must be applied with the greatest care, and education is one of these. We must avoid waste in education; we must see that we are getting value for the money expended on it: but a campaign of economy with regard to education will not have my support.

We have been told about what has been done in the United States of America. One outstanding factor in connection with the prosperity of the United States is that the State that spends most on education is the most successful. I am satisfied that if this country is to be successful in future a considerable expenditure will be necessary on education. I ask Deputies, if they are satisfied that that expenditure is necessary and desirable in the interests of the industrial development of the country, not to hesitate to embark on it, in order to put the country in that state of efficiency in which it will be able to compete successfully with all-comers.

Mr. J. CONLAN

The Deputy who has just spoken attributed all the evils that exist in the country to want of education. He alluded to our export trade. It comes as a surprise to me to be told that the falling off in exports is due to want of education. I would rather say that it is due to the conditions which farmers have to meet, such as high freights and unsatisfactory service from the systems of which educated men like Deputy Good are at the head. It appears to be the fashion now-a-days for Deputies to decry their own country in every respect.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

And farmers particularly.

Mr. CONLAN

And to point by way of contrast to what has been done in other countries. I suppose Deputy Good will be surprised to hear that it was stated not very long ago in an American periodical of high standing that the greatest percentage of illiterates in any Expeditionary Army in the Great War came from the United States. We are also taxed with lack of efficiency. A few months ago I saw agricultural work being carried on in Belgium that no Irish farmer would stand over. He would not stand over it in this sense, that the Minister for Lands and Agriculture would put such a farm up for sale. I think we should abandon the idea of decrying everything Irish and booming everything done in foreign countries.

Deputy Good also asked for an expression of opinion on education from the Farmers' Benches. I think I am expressing their views when I say that they are in favour of an improved and extended system of education. They have never stood in the way of that desire. But I deny that an improved system of education is going to make us rich quickly. It may tend in that direction after some years, but we cannot expect great results at once. I have great sympathy with Deputy O'Connell's amendment, inasmuch as it seems to be a step in the direction of continuation courses. I take it that it is not ordinary school subjects, or the three R's that are going to be taught to boys and girls from 14 to 16 years. Would it be possible to link up the system of technical education at present existing with the education given in the primary schools? We have a system of technical education that is costing a good deal of money. I believe that the teachers are very competent in their particular subjects, but I am sorry to say there is not a very good response on the part of the people for whom the instruction is intended. As far as my experience goes, the attendance at these classes is poor. I have heard several complaints about the difficulty of securing proper attendance. If it were possible to link up that system of education in which rural science, as affecting agriculture, is included as well as domestic economy, which would be suitable for girls, with primary education, I think it would be a change that would be welcomed throughout the country. There is a slight diversity of views regarding the amendment, but for my part, I intend to vote for it.

Mr. COLE

I would like to support this amendment, but I am afraid Deputy Good has taken the cream of my arguments. However, I would have felt more nervous if Deputy Conlan had not spoken before me. Deputy Conlan seems to think that any criticism which we may offer is towards decrying everything Irish. That is not a fact. We do not want to decry anything Irish but rather to stimulate it. At the present time it may be a difficult matter for farmers to carry on without the assistance of their children. On the other hand, too many of their children are used in a kind of white slavery at the present time. Their children are often expected to do work which the farm labourers would not do, and even if the farm labourers did consent to do it, the Labourers' Union would come in and say, "No." At the age of fourteen our children do more beneficial work at school than probably they do there for a couple of years previous. It is in their latter school-days that a decision is taken as to what mode of life the children will follow. If the dreams which we have of higher education for the farmer and the agricultural community in general are really genuine, is it not in these latter years that we should try to assist the children? I intend to deal with this case of the farming class generally, as I would with any other calling. People in urban centres can generally follow up their earlier education in technical schools, but when the farmers' sons and the farmers' daughters leave school, more particularly the daughters, it is almost impossible for them to get any further education.

I fear that the country has not yet realised how much depends on agriculture. Perhaps this is because in the past we have been linked up so much with a partner under whom so many industries of different kinds were carried on. Now, if we have really grasped the fact that this country depends for eighty-five per cent. of its income upon agriculture I think it is about time that we should try to appreciate the value of the agricultural industry. It is about time that we looked upon our agricultural calling, which is such a prime necessity, in much the same way as the medical or any other profession is looked upon. It is time, I think, that we got rid of the idea that farmers are only out for toil and labour; because not only have they to work nine hours a day, but the great majority of them are engaged in labour for fourteen and sixteen hours a day, and this on Sundays as well as on week-days. I say, therefore, let us try and fill the rising generation with brighter hopes as regards the agricultural calling. Let us give it, what it has not had in the past, a scientific and college standing. Then, and not till then, shall we be able to cope with our young people who fight shy of what should be made honourable work, and who at present seem only too anxious to emigrate to do menial work in foreign countries. It is only by raising the standard of education that we can accomplish all that.

MINISTER for EDUCATION (Professor O'Sullivan)

At the outset, perhaps, I might point out what exactly is the difference between the mover of the amendment and myself, and between those who support the amendment and those who oppose it. We are not at all divided on the advisability, where it is practicable, of compelling people to attend school up to the age of sixteen. That is not the question. Deputies who have read the amendment which I had circulated last evening, and which I propose moving at a later stage of this Bill, will see that we are quite alive, so far as it is humanly practicable, to the necessity of raising the compulsory age from fourteen to sixteen. That is not the question. It is not the question whether such a state of things is desirable, because we are as anxious as any other party in the House to see that carried out. It is not the question as to what you should aim at. The aim we have before us is quite definitely in favour of raising, wherever possible, the age to sixteen. That aim is as clearly before us as it is before those who have spoken in favour of this particular amendment. The whole matter is really a question of method. What is the best way of attaining the end that is common to our party, to the Labour Party, to the Independents and to Deputies who sit on the Farmers' Benches? We all have that particular aim before us, as far as I can judge from the speeches that have been made up to the present. The only point we differ on is as to the best method of realising our aim.

I was very glad to hear from the various expressions of opinion that have come forth from the different parts of the House that there will be no objection to increased expenditure in education in the future. I hope that does not mean, as very often happens in this House, that on each particular vote Deputies will get up and support a demand for increased expenditure, and that only when the question of providing the increased expenditure comes on that the criticisms will begin to be heard. There is a general tendency, I presume every Deputy is familiar with it, of moving for increased expenditure on every individual vote, and then to move for a reduction on the total. I hope that will not be adopted and will not be the attitude in the future, especially so far as this particular department is concerned.

The financial difficulties are not the only ones. I admit that the financial considerations at the present moment are important, but they are not the only ones that make me prefer the particular amendment I have circulated to the one now before the House. It is really a question of feasibility; how far an amendment of this kind can be put into operation at present. I think more damage can be done by passing legislation of this kind which is not meant to operate and which from the very circumstances of the case cannot operate, and then relaxing. Deputy Johnson says he prefers the system of relaxing to tightening up. I am of the opposite point of view. I think if you legislate you ought to enforce the law. There ought not to be any relaxation. I would prefer a gradual tightening up to an initial relaxation. I think if you get into the habit of initial relaxation your whole system is vitiated from the very start. That is really what I feel in connection with this particular amendment: if you pass it you are really not legislating with full responsibility, but you are making a gesture. That is the difficulty, and I do not think it is the business of legislation to make gestures. It is the business of legislation to enact provisions that are meant to be enforced, and that is why I much prefer— I am not accepting this amendment— the particular form of amendment that I circulated last evening. The amendment which was circulated last evening is the method that I prefer to reach the same end. The difficulties that we would have immediately to contend with, if the amendment on the Paper were passed, are too great to allow us to think of even accepting it at present. Deputy Good has spoken of the backward state of the whole system of education. That is precisely it. We have not that system of post-primary education, of continuation classes and so on and of technical education that this amendment contemplates, if this amendment is to be a reality. I admit there are financial difficulties, but what I have just mentioned now is really one of the principal difficulties. On examining the situation as a whole, we have felt bound to oppose this particular amendment. In the amendment circulated last evening we suggest a method by which we intend to attain the same end.

There are tremendous difficulties, and so serious is the situation we are only able to give a rough estimate of what these difficulties are likely to be. There are economic difficulties. I am not now referring to the question of the amount of money which it will cost; I am referring to the difficulty, I may say almost the impossibility, of enforcing the ages of fourteen to sixteen in many parts of the country. It may or it may not be desirable that parents, and especially poorer parents with large families, should wish to get something from the employment of their children between certain ages. That may or may not be desirable, but in the economic situation in certain large districts in Ireland I think it is a fact that we will have to recognise. You cannot ignore it. To do so and to try and enforce a provision such as is now proposed would be, it seems to me, to court disaster from the start. We will have great difficulty, I am convinced, in enforcing the age even up to fourteen at the initial stages. These things will have to come, but an effort will be made, and no effort will be spared to see that the age of fourteen is observed. But, as a Deputy pointed out in the course of the debate yesterday, the most difficult ages, apparently, to secure attendance at school are not between six and seven, but between eleven and fourteen. We shall have great difficulty in enforcing that, especially in the country districts. I feel certain of that. But our difficulties would be tenfold increased, and I think there would be grave injustice imposed upon the agricultural community, especially the poorer parts of Ireland, if an attempt of that kind were made. It would be a premature attempt, unless we know definitely where we were. In fact it is only gradually we can go forward. But supposing this amendment is rejected, and the amendment I propose is accepted, we can only go on gradually enforcing the extension of the age limit from fourteen upwards, but to do so a thorough inquiry on our part will be necessary to see how far it can be imposed in each particular district. It will probably be more easy to impose it in the towns, for instance, than in the country districts. We cannot expect, taking the situation as it is, with what I might call the educational preparation of the last generation, for this Bill, being such as it is, uniformity all over the country in this particular matter. That is the reason why, in the proposed amendment—that is, in the proposed new Section 23—such wide powers are asked for in that particular matter, so that where the situation is ripe for it the necessary extension will take place.

There are other difficulties. Where are we, if we carry through a system of this kind? We will have difficulty, and great difficulty, in getting the increased number of teachers even for the compulsory attendance legislation we are now proposing. We probably will, in the course of a few years, require in addition to the ordinary number of teachers, to replace those who automatically go out, anything up to 1,000 as an extreme limit, but it will certainly be more than 500, and I do not think the suggestion made by Deputy O'Connell about the amalgamation of the smaller schools, if that were practicable, would meet the situation. It will go portion of the way to meet that situation, but not entirely. We will be already faced with the grave difficulty of finding the necessary number of teachers to deal with the compulsion Act even limited to the ages between six at the one end, and the higher limit of 14 at the other.

Then there is the financial case. I am not stressing it now. Our estimate is that it would cost to enforce the Act up to the age of 14, at the beginning, and initially, in or about £120,000 a year, and afterwards we may put it at about £200,000 a year. These figures, if they err at all, probably err on the low side. They were figures not intended for this House, but figures intended to be put up to the Department of Finance. We do not generally exaggerate the cost when putting things up to the Department of Finance. They are generally the lowest figures, but, of course, I do not say that they are not the correct figures, but we certainly do not exaggerate. Then we calculate that if we were to extend the limit from 14 to 16 years of age, the cost initially would mean an additional £110,000 or £120,000, and might go up to £150,000.

Mr. GOOD

None of that would come within this financial year or the next.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

It certainly would not come into this financial year, because before the end of it the Bill will hardly be passed, and it certainly will not be in operation. But Deputy Good seems to suggest that because it does not come within the next financial year another set of Deputies will have to be responsible for voting it.

Mr. GOOD

No, what I am coming at is this. On the 31st March, 1928, the operation dealing with the extension of the age from 14 to 16 will commence, and it is then the expenses will accrue with the operation of that portion of the Act.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

I think there will be a certain amount of expense involved before that.

Mr. GOOD

In the preparation of buildings and so on.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

If this Bill passes, and is put into operation next September, I think from that onward portion of the cost begins to accrue. I do not see, in any case, how it affects the merits of the case, that we will vote or commit ourselves to a couple of hundred thousand a year because we will not have to pay it this year, and will not have to pay it for another year or two. I am not stressing this financial side of it so much, but I am stressing the difficulties in the way.

Mr. GOOD

There are savings expected in connection with the Army and in other directions that will be a set-off by that time.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

I think that, taking the whole educational situation, the economic condition—and I want to make it quite clear that I am not referring to the necessity of the finances for the Bill—taking the economic condition of the country and the educational preparation, it would be unwise that we should get into the loose habit of having an Act and not enforcing it. I think, so far as the real situation is concerned, the real purpose we all have before us is much more likely to be achieved, and achieved more effectively, by the amendment standing in my name than in the amendment we are now discussing. There is nothing to be gained by pretending that we are in a position to carry out measures that we are not in a position to carry out, and I feel that if we were to pass this amendment that is the attitude we in the Dáil would be taking up. It would be a mere gesture, and however much might be said in favour of gestures of that kind and the moral effect they are likely to have on the country, I do not think that we should legislate merely to have fine gestures. The amendment that stands in my name meets the whole situation of the case in a much less objectionable way than the amendment we have now before us.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

When the Dáil gave a Second Reading to this Bill it definitely declared itself on the side of civilisation. I know that there are people in the world, a small, dwindling faction perhaps, who object to education and who decry civilisation. Even in this country we have had a number of such cranks. But still I contend that sensible and progressive persons who want to proceed in the march of civilisation are in the ascendant, and are resolved to see that these cranks will not have their way. If we are resolved upon having education at all, does it not seem the logical and proper thing to see that within our resources— and I quite admit that resources are a paramount consideration—we must have the fullest and most complete system of education that it is possible to obtain? I am wondering why the Government did not incorporate this amendment circulated in the White Paper yesterday in the Bill when it went to the printers. The Minister's explanation is scarcely satisfactory. He says that it is a question of ways and means, a question of feasibility. But I am really indifferent as to whether the object that I want to achieve is secured either by the amendment on the White Paper or by that of Deputy O'Connell. I, at least, want to support the underlying principle.

I have always maintained, and still maintain, that we have a very poor standard of primary education, and that it is essential, not alone for progress but even for the maintenance of our present condition, that that standard should be raised and raised speedily. We have a definite social system especially with regard to the ownership of land, that is, peasant proprietorship. What does that mean? It means that instead of having big estates under unity of control and direction, we have the land broken up into a number of autonomous parts, and if there is an uneducated people possessed of these parts, in possession of certain rights and enjoying certain privileges, what is the position? You must either have a Government on the one hand acting as a sort of semi-military organisation, enforcing obedience in trade and business matters if you leave your people in complete ignorance, or it must be your aim to awaken the intelligence of these people and to make them move forward on business and scientific lines for the development and the cultivation of their holdings. Knowing what the position is to-day, more education is essential for the people in many parts of the country. The people know nothing about the constituents of the soil, they have only a very rudimentary and superficial knowledge of its potentialities and capabilities, of how they can increase its yield in an economical manner and thereby retain their place in the markets of the world. That is, to me, the supreme consideration.

I agree that the age of fourteen is normally far too low for leaving school. I quite admit that there are conditions and circumstances—economic distress, for instance—which may compel the withdrawal of a child from school at fourteen, but I think it must be of universal application to the country that these children should get a post-elementary course, a system of night schools must be established, and we must establish these post-elementary courses in every hamlet. The Minister said that the greatest difficulty in enforcing compulsory attendance would be in rural areas. I question that. I submit that small towns and villages will be the worst, and that ninety per cent. of the activities of the Guards will have to be exercised in these towns and villages. Take the case of the town of Ennis. I am prepared to say that the children in the slums there—and I suppose we have almost the worst slums in the country in Ennis—are three-fourths of their time from school. I have met several teachers who always complain of the bad attendance in the towns. There is a reasonable amount of attendance in the rural areas, but the villages are hopeless, and it is in these places that the Minister will have to exercise and put in force the powers that are to be conferred on him by this Bill.

I quite admit the force of his argument that it is difficult to achieve this desideratum at the moment. But is it not essential that steps be taken so as to secure the supply of teachers that would be necessary? I look forward to a situation wherein we will have established in the latter years of the school-going age something approximating to technical education. I am indifferent as to whether you make the ages between fourteen and sixteen for post-primary schools, or whether you make attendance at a national school or day-school obligatory up to the age of sixteen. But it is essential, I say, that these courses must be inaugurated, and the money must be found from some source or other. If we are to achieve anything it will be through education but what kind of education? I visualise an education that will provide an incentive to work, to progress, and to well-being. I am certain that the system that we have at the moment has unfortunately turned out—and I regret to make this statement—perhaps the most ignorant democracy in Europe. On the question of money, I submit that we have to take the long view. No one in the House or in the country is more insistent than I am on the need for economy, but still, with Deputy Good, I believe that to stint and starve education is false economy, that it is doing a great injustice to the present generation and that it is ruinous and destructive of any hope for the forthcoming generation.

We are hard pushed, as Deputy Good put it, to retain our hold on our markets. You know how badly off agriculture is, and I see the one hope of agriculture in scientific training, to have the young men disciplined and brought firmly and resolutely to the task of having to give work, not alone work, but skilled work, and not alone skilled work, but work that is directed by a superior intelligence. These must be our considerations. I am indifferent as to whether we gain this end by Deputy O'Connell's amendment or by the amendment of the Minister, but it is essential, I believe, if we are not to fall out of the pale of civilisation altogether, that the whole system of education and all the ideas underlying it must be revised and re-organised, and if Deputy O'Connell forces his amendment to a division I cannot see how any Deputy can refuse to support it.

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

The Minister went so far in stressing the difficulties which he foresaw, as the result of his short experience in the Department of Education, in putting my amendment into practice, that we were inclined towards the end of his speech to forget what he said at the beginning, namely, that he was strongly in favour of the principle underlying the amendment. I just want to remind Deputies of that again lest, as I say, the manner in which he stressed the difficulty might cause them to forget that he was in favour of the principle. I am very pleased with the general expression of opinion in regard to this amendment and this proposal to raise the school-leaving age to 16. Yesterday, in submitting this amendment, I made a special appeal to the representatives of agriculture because I felt it was those who were concerned in that industry who would benefit most by an extension of the school-leaving age. I am very pleased indeed to have this expression of opinion in favour of the amendment from the Farmers' benches. Of course, I did not expect support from Deputy Heffernan. Deputy Heffernan is clearly against the Bill altogether, or I should say—he protested yesterday when the Minister said he was against the Bill— he is in favour of the Bill with all those amendments in it that he is proposing. I take it that is his position. In that way he reminds one of the atheist who said he was in favour of the Ten Commandments, with, he said, of course, a few little amendments. Asked what the few amendments were that he desired to have in the Ten Commandments, he said that he wished to remove the word "not" wherever it appeared. That seems to be Deputy Heffernan's attitude on this Bill.

There was a line taken up by most of the speakers that I would like to say a word on. It was stressed specially by Deputy Good—that it was the material prosperity of the country we should have in mind in considering an improvement in our education system. That is very good and all very fine, but I think there is something more to be said. I think there is another side to be stressed. I think that, apart from the question of material prosperity and material success, the advantage is generally on the side of the person possessing the best education, although we may have, as Deputy Baxter says, some educated "good-for-nothings." But education in itself should be something worth striving for from the spiritual side. Education opens up for the individual wide fields, and I cannot conceive any man, whether he is engaged on a farm, in a factory or in an office, who is not a better citizen because of an extended education; and from that fact alone, apart altogether from the question of material prosperity, which it is bound to bring in its wake, I think the idea should be supported.

The Minister referred to an amendment which he circulated here yesterday. I did foresee that there would be certain difficulties in putting this into operation immediately, and in drafting the amendment, I thought I had made it as easy as possible to put it into operation, as I left a certain discretion with the Minister in the matter. However, I quite realise that conditions very in various parts of the country. In some places I believe it would be quite feasible to put this provision into operation almost immediately, and in some other districts it might take a very considerable time. I think the Minister especially exaggerated the difficulties with regard to providing staffs in the matter of the ordinary school-going age up to fourteen. We know that there are practically 4,000 two-teacher schools, and in many of these schools, as the Minister will find out if he makes inquiries, the second teacher is barely kept on. The average attendance at these schools is scarcely sufficient to maintain the assistant. In these schools what will happen will be that the average attendance will increase by 10, 15, or 20. That is putting it at a liberal figure for these 4,000 schools all over the rural districts. There will be comparatively few places where the putting of the Bill into operation will mean the employment of an extra teacher. It will not at all reach in any case the figure mentioned by the Minister.

As I say, the putting into operation of my amendment all over the country might have certain difficulties and it might be necessary for the Department to make a more thorough examination of the situation, but if I am to understand, as I believe I am, from the Minister, that he is prepared to move this amendment, and if I am further to understand that there will be general agreement so far as the acceptance of the Minister's amendment is concerned, I am prepared to reconsider my position with regard to my amendment. The idea I had in putting down my amendment has been achieved. The Government came along with a Bill in which the upper age is 14. That was clearly unsatisfactory, and there was a strong expression of opinion from many Deputies, on the occasion of the Second Reading, that the age was too low. Deputy Connor Hogan wanted to know why they did not incorporate the amendment in the Bill at first. That will be for themselves to answer, but I would say that their reason for bringing forward this amendment now is because they felt that the amendment on the Paper would be carried. There was a general call from all parts of the House for the raising of the school age, and if the Minister in his wisdom thinks this is a much more advisable way to adopt at the moment, in order to get over administrative difficulties, as there is no difference between us on the question of principle, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment.

I would like, however, to get a personal guarantee from the Minister that, as far as he is concerned, he will do everything it is possible for him to do, to make the necessary examination into the conditions and to put this into operation where he thinks it could be put into operation, and to such extent as he thinks it could be put into operation, because there is always this danger, that the Minister takes power to do a certain thing, and then, when he proceeds to put that into operation, from one Government Department or another—possibly from the Finance Department or in some other way— there may be certain difficulties placed in his way, and the easy way to get out of it is to say: "We will let the thing slip." That has been done in other ways where Ministers took powers such as these, and various things cropped up which prevented them putting them into operation. We know we cannot foretell what will happen in the future, but I would like the Minister to give us some assurance —assuming this amendment is put into the Bill—that he will leave nothing undone and that the necessary steps will be taken to put this into operation. On that understanding I will be prepared to withdraw my amendment.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

Deputy O'Connell, speaking last night, made one remark which intimated that he did not intend the discussion on this Bill to be from the party point of view. I think that the very admirable case he made for his amendment and the support he got from various parts of the Dáil—possibly parts from which he did not expect to get support—have amply proved, if proof were necessary, that he certainly had not approached this in any party spirit whatsoever. So far as I am personally concerned, I intend to uphold the principle of the amendment seriously, and I will make every effort, having made due inquiries to see whether we can put it into force and gradually extend it.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I refuse to be driven into the position of being against education. It is one thing being against education. It is another thing being against extreme compulsion in education. I have preached over and over again the doctrine that I believe the future of agriculture in Ireland must depend, to a great extent, upon our educational system, but I am a firm believe in trying to inculcate a spirit and desire for education. I do not believe that any amount of compulsion will produce an educated race, unless you get the spirit and the desire to achieve real education. We all know that in the realms of education Scotland may be said, perhaps, to have led Europe for many years. At the time when Scotchmen were going to the Universities with their sacks of meal and a few bawbees, they were not going there because they were compelled to go. They were going there because the desire for education existed. The desire to advance themselves and to advance their race existed amongst the people. Until we can get that spirit in our people I maintain that no form of compulsion will produce the educational results which we are aiming at. It seems to me, listening to a number of the speeches made here, that we are placing ourselves in the position of sitting down to make legislation and ignoring, to a certain extent, the conditions that exist throughout the country. We seem to think that by passing legislation and arranging for money that the money is to be found. While I do not stand against the expenditure of money on education, provided it is wisely expended. I am not in agreement with the ideal which appears to prevail that dear education is necessarily good education, and that the expenditure of money on education is bound to produce results. With one statement of the Minister for Education I am in strong accord, and that is that we should not pass legislation which we do not intend to enforce. In my opinion, that is a danger which a new State of this kind runs. It is a serious danger passing legislation which in actual practice will not be enforced. That is a thing that is done in many of the smaller States throughout the world, where we find all kinds of extravagant legislation with regard to school attendance, working hours, and conditions of labour passed, and where these laws are never enforced.

I want to see, as the Minister for Education does, that when we pass laws these laws are carried out to the letter and that they do not remain simply as gestures on our Statute Books as to what we desire to have carried out. Apart from the question of finding the money, there are the economic conditions which exist in the country. If we pass legislation here, without regard to those economic conditions, we are doing something which we are not authorised to do by the people who sent us here. We must recognise that if we either establish by this Bill a general compulsory school-leaving age of sixteen, or if we give power to the Minister to establish it where he desires it, the parents and children in those districts will have to keep those children and maintain them until they reach the age of sixteen, and that until the age of sixteen is reached the parents will be unable to gain any advantage from the work of the children either on the farms or outside the farms. Is the State prepared to take the full implications of that law if it becomes the law? Is the State prepared, where parents cannot do so, to provide those children with the wherewithal to exist while they continue going to school until they are sixteen years of age? I say that until the State is prepared to shoulder such a burden they have no right to compel people to send their children to school when these people are unable to maintain the children at school.

We have had a great many lectures on the desirability of the improvement of agricultural methods, and we have a great many people making individious comparisons between the agricultural methods prevailing in this country and the agricultural methods prevailing in other countries. I am not prepared to say that there is not great room for improvement in agricultural methods. But if education is to be the foundation of our agricultural developments, and if compulsion is to be the foundation of that education, I will ask Deputy Good why is it that in Denmark the compulsory age is only seven to fourteen, and why is it that we have been told that the educational system in Denmark, particularly in view of the agricultural conditions, is the best educational system in the world?

Mr. GOOD

In Denmark they have continuation schools.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

That is true, but attendance at those schools is not compulsory; it is voluntary.

Major COOPER

Because in Denmark the farmers are willing to go to these schools.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

That is what I want to see here. I do want to see the farmers' sons attending those schools, but I maintain that it is not by compulsion or by dragooning or by Prussianising, as we are trying to do in this country, that that can be done. We are forcing the people to do everything by law. I maintain that it is by inculcating the spirit and the desire for education that it can be done. If we can make the people realise the value of education and foster the desire for education and bring about a realisation that their own future and the future of their country depends upon education, then it will not be necessary to pass extreme compulsory laws for school attendance.

Mr. CONLAN

Helping the lazy ones on with the stick.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

We have now reached the time for private business. But perhaps, seeing that the motion on the Paper is Deputy Johnson's own, we can, with his consent, settle this amendment.

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

I desire to ask the leave of the Dáil to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. GOOD

What will the position be with regard to the substituted amendment?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Minister's amendment?

Mr. GOOD

Yes.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The provision will be that the Minister will propose to insert a new section before Section 23. If the Minister's amendment is accepted in Committee, it will appear in the Bill on Report and it will be open to Deputies to express their views on it on Report.

Mr. GOOD

But you see the difference. Deputy O'Connell's amendment proposes to delete Section 2. I do not know if there is any such proposal in the Minister's amendment. Then the position will be this—Section 2 says the Act shall only apply to children between six and fourteen. Then we will have a further section later on that will extend the Act to others. That is a thing I think that ought to be rectified.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

This will be discussed in Committee as an amendment. Then, of course, that may involve an amendment to Section 2, which will be proposed on Report Stage. I should say that that will be what will happen.

Mr. GOOD

I shall be quite satisfied with that.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

If the new amendment is accepted, and if that involves, as I think it will involve, some modification of Section 2, naturally that will be proposed as a consequential amendment on the Report Stage.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The advantages are in favour of discussing the Minister's proposed new section in Committee, because another stage has then to come on, at which either this or a consequential amendment may be made. Leave is given to withdraw Deputy O'Connell's amendment, and I think I may take it that that also disposes of amendment No. 3 in the same way.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered—"That progress be reported."

The Dáil went out of Committee.

Progress reported, the Committee to sit again on Wednesday, February 10th.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

took the Chair.