As the amendment to Section 2 has been disposed of, the question before the Dáil is: That Section 2 stand part of the Bill.
PUBLIC BUSINESS. - SCHOOL ATTENDANCE BILL, 1925—THIRD STAGE (RESUMED).
In view of the amendment which the Minister proposes to move later on, it will be necessary, I think, if that amendment is accepted, to have it considered before the Report Stage is reached.
Would it be possible to learn in advance what alterations the proposed amendment will make? The acceptance of that amendment may alter a number of sections. If the Minister could give us some idea, in advance, as to what these alterations will be, I think it would be well. The Minister's amendment is down very far in the Bill, and if we knew in advance what alterations it proposes, it would, I think, facilitate Deputies in the consideration of other amendments.
It will be purely a consequential amendment. I could not, at the moment, state the exact form of it, but probably it would be something like this: "Except where elsewhere provided for in the Bill." It will be mere wording more than anything else, and will be consequential in that sense.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 3 put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
(1) The parent of every child to whom this Act applies shall, unless there is a reasonable excuse for not so doing, cause the child to attend a national or other suitable school on every day on which such school is open for secular instruction and for such time on every such day as shall be prescribed or sanctioned by the Minister in respect of such day.
(2) Any of the following shall be a reasonable excuse for failure to comply with this section, that is to say:—
(a) that the child has been prevented from attending school by the sickness of the child or of some person in the house in which the child resides or by some similar cause;
(b) that the child is receiving suitable elementary education in some manner other than by attending a national or other suitable school;
(c) that there is not a national or other suitable school accessible to the child which the child can attend and to which the parent of the child does not object on religious grounds to send the child.
(3) The following shall also be a reasonable excuse for failure to comply with this section on not more than ten days during the period beginning on the 1st day of April and ending on the 15th day of May next following in any year in respect of a child who has attained the age of ten years, that is to say, that the child has been prevented from attending school by reason of his having been engaged in light agricultural work for his parent.
(4) The following shall also be a reasonable excuse for failure to comply with this section on not more than ten days during the period beginning on the 1st day of August and ending on the 15th day of October next following in any year in respect of a child who has attained the age of ten years, that is to say, that the child has been prevented from attending school by reason of his having been engaged in light agricultural work for his parent.
(5) A school shall be deemed to be accessible to a child for the purposes of this section if, but only if, either—
(a) the school is situate, in the case of a child who has not attained the age of ten years, within two miles measured along the shortest public road or path from the child's residence or, in the case of a child who has attained the age of ten years, within three miles similarly measured from the child's residence; or
(b) there is a suitable means of conveyance to the school available for the child from a point within a reasonable distance from the child's residence.
Amendment 4 not moved.
I move amendment 5:—
" In sub-section (2) (a) to delete all after the word `child' in line 19, and substitute the words `or by some similar cause in support of which a medical certificate shall be produced (in cases where the attendance of the child has been in excess of 75 per cent. during the current session the Minister may dispense with the production of a medical certificate)'."
The object of this amendment is to make sure that we shall have the attendance, where possible, of the several children of school age in the national schools. The Bill, as drafted, leaves a number of loop-holes and this is one of them: that any child can give as an excuse for non-attendance that he or she has been ill. There are a great many phases of illness. When applied to school children, the term "illness" or "sickness" possibly means what some of us would be doubtful about calling either sickness or illness, and, if we are to leave loop-holes of this description in the Bill, I am afraid the advantages that we hope for will be little better than those gained from the legislation in existence at the moment.
This section states that if there is any person ill in the house where the child resides, it shall be considered a reasonable excuse for remaining from school. I would suggest that Deputies should picture some of the tenement houses in our cities from which a number of school children come. These tenement houses, in many cases, house a very large number of families, and I am sure there seldom would be circumstances in connection with some of these houses where some person would not be ill. Consequently, any child of school age in one of these houses would be at liberty, at any time, to put forward the plea that Mrs. So-and-so, up in the third floor, was ill, and that it was not desirable to go to school. In order to meet that difficulty, I propose that a medical certificate should be forthcoming where the child puts forward the plea of illness and, further, I propose that that certificate should be dispensed with in cases where the child's attendance up to that particular date in the session has reached an average of not less than seventy-five per cent. That proposal is in existence at the moment, and it has worked most satisfactorily. I think Deputies will agree that an amendment of this kind is desirable, and it gives the Minister an option, as I state, to dispense with the certificate in certain circumstances.
I do not regard this amendment as a practical one. The main objection I can see to it is the financial one, that is the payment of the doctor for the medical certificate. If a doctor were available to treat every trivial illness that would make it necessary to keep a child from school, I would feel in sympathy with the amendment; but, in view of the fact that the parents would be obliged, in a great many cases, to pay a fee to a doctor and that the child would be kept at home, in many cases, because of some comparatively trivial illness, and yet an illness that would be a sufficient excuse for retaining the child, I think in actual practice this amendment could not be worked.
Is it the view of the Deputy that nothing in the nature of a certificate should be necessary and that all the child has to say is that he or she was ill on a particular day and therefore did not attend school? If that is the idea of a Compulsory School Attendance Bill, I am afraid it will be of very little use.
There is a great deal to be said for Deputy Good's amendment. The section, as it stands, is much too loose. If it were stated that some person in the house in which the child resided was suffering from an infectious illness there might be something in it, but, as it stands, a person suffering from a cold in the chest may serve as an excuse for children not going to school. When I read this section at first I saw quite clearly the looseness of it, and I was in hopes that there would be some change, specifying as an excuse for non-attendance that a person in the house was suffering from some infectious disease, because it is quite right that that should be looked into and it is quite right that children should not be allowed to go to school from a house in which an infectious disease is present. On the other hand, it is quite wrong if anyone can give as an excuse that some person in the house was ill, when the illness meant a broken leg or an ailment of that sort. I think that is what the Deputy had in mind when he proposed this amendment. I do not know whether the Minister would be willing to accept the amendment as it stands. As regards what Deputy Heffernan says about people having to run for medical certificates and having to pay for them, I had hopes that under the Act we talked about so long, the Medical Inspection and Treatment of School Children Act, many of these cases would be done by the medical officer appointed in charge of the schools.
Deputy Byrne has spoken to me with regard to another matter—namely, that it is a very serious thing to allow children to go to school suffering from ringworm. I have been telling him that it will be possible to deal with that when the Act of 1919—the Medical Inspection and Treatment of School Children Act—will have been enforced. After the County Medical Officers of Health have been placed in charge and have got under them medical inspectors of schools, that is one of the things, at all events, that must be done with regard to schools—to see after the cleanliness of the child with regard to vermin and with regard to infectious diseases. I have said very little in this matter, because it seems to me that it must be dealt with perhaps from the public health point of view rather than from the point of view of a School Attendance Bill. At the same time I must say that there is a great deal to be said for Deputy Good's amendment.
I think it would be desirable to take amendments 5, 6 and 6a together.
I was going to suggest that.
They all aim at leaving out the words after "child" in line 19. If necessary, I could put the question that the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the section.
I was going to suggest that very thing, because I find it would be very difficult to discuss this section without referring to the question as a whole. It will ease the matter by my saying that I am not moving amendment 6a. The other amendment was put in afterwards. It was simply one to delete.
I think your amendment is very advisable.
With regard to the section, there is agreement between myself, Deputy Good and Deputy Sir James Craig, at any rate, that as it stands it is not at all satisfactory; it is too wide in its interpretation. I have, naturally, a preference for my own amendment as against Deputy Good's amendment; I think it meets the point more satisfactorily. As the section stands, it leaves too many loop-holes. In regard to sickness it is generally accepted that if a child is sick it cannot go to school; no one objects to that. On the other hand, however, the words "or of some person in the house in which the child resides or by some similar cause" would be sufficient to furnish too many excuses for absence from school. It might be pleaded that if somebody in the house has a broken leg the child ought to stay at home from school. I take it the intention was that the child would be specially needed at home because of illness. Possibly you would get that interpretation on a strict reading of the measure, but the ordinary person will not read it so strictly. The ordinary person will think that if anybody in the house is ill, that is sufficient to keep the child from school. I do not think the section should be left as it is.
There are some cases that Deputy Good's amendment would not meet. If his amendment were accepted, a child could be prevented from attending school by sickness, "or by some similar cause in support of which a medical certificate shall be produced." I think it will be recognised that there could be causes which would not come under the head of sickness, but which an ordinary person would regard as reasonable for keeping a child from school. If the child is sick, or any individual in the house is sick, there must be some allowance made.
One could conceive the case of a very regular attender whose sister would be getting married; that might be considered a reasonable cause to allow the child to remain away from school. There would be other cases somewhat similar to that in which the child would remain away and it might not be considered advisable to say the parents were breaking the law. While scarcely anyone would be more rigid than I in having the law carried out in this respect, I think it could be said that in the case of a child who attended so regularly, to stay at home on an occasion of that kind was not sufficient to inflict punishment on the parents. That is why I have adopted the phraseology in amendment 6:—
In sub-section (2) (a), lines 19 to 21, to delete the words "or of some person in the house in which the child resides or by some similar cause " and substitute the words " or any unavoidable cause."
I am afraid even that would not meet the situation fully. I have taken it from the Act in force in Northern Ireland. I think it would go further to meet the situation than would the wording of the section as it stands. Perhaps it would be better if it were "or other unavoidable or reasonable cause." The section reads:"... the parent of every child ... shall, unless there is a reasonable excuse for not so doing, cause the child to attend a national or other suitable school. ..." I suggest that the phraseology used in the Act in force in Northern Ireland should be adopted. In practice it is found to work satisfactorily. It sets out that a child should only be prevented from attending school by sickness or some other unavoidable cause.
Would a wedding in the family be an unavoidable cause?
Certainly.
It might not be. Perhaps the illustration I gave was not a fortunate one. The decision as to what is or what is not reasonable must rest with the District Justice, or whoever is appointed to decide the question. I think a certain amount of discretion would have to be used by those responsible for a prosecution. It is rather difficult to formulate a phrase which will meet the situation. I am satisfied, however, that the section, as it stands, is too wide, especially when it touches on the illness of some person in the house. As regards providing a certificate, I think it would be rather a hardship to have to provide a certificate in every case of illness.
The amendment does not suggest that it should apply to every case. It applies only where the average attendance of the child has been less than 75 per cent. of full attendance at that period of the session. Where the average attendance is in excess of 75 per cent. a certificate would not be necessary.
The onus of proof is put on the parent; proof has to be furnished that the child was actually ill. I think to insist on the production of a medical certificate on every occasion would be too rigid, and in practice I do not think it would work satisfactorily. I know that teachers can easily tell the people who are offending in this way and who are keeping their children away from school without cause. In the regulations that will be made no doubt discretion will be given to the enforcing authority, and I take it there will be observations made in regard to the quality of the attendance of pupils. I am of opinion that the situation would be best met by the adoption of the amendment standing in my name, which I beg to move.
I think Deputy O'Connell has put the case very clearly. The section is too loose and his amendment aims at giving a certain amount of laxity which I think is necessary. I would strongly urge the adoption of Deputy O'Connell's amendment as against Deputy Good's amendment. We should not be too rigid nor should we have the sections so loose that people can make excuses about practically anything.
I do not like the wording of the section, not because I regard it as very loose, but rather because I think that the result would be the bringing of cases to court, which might be avoided by a better use of language. Under this section any person summoned for not sending a child to school would have to show that the child was prevented by sickness either in the case of itself or in the case of some person. Proof will be required, and it will be at the discretion of the District Justice as to whether the child was really prevented from going to school. There is not so much looseness in the section as might appear at first sight. It will rest with the person prosecuting to prove that the child was actually prevented from attending school.
On a strict reading of the section, it could be urged that it would meet the case, because the onus is on the parent to prove that the child could not attend school. That onus of proof is on the parent; but then it must be proved that the child was prevented from going to school; in that way there is a double onus. That undoubtedly is the intention of the section. On the other hand, I am quite willing to admit that the ordinary person might not take that particular legal interpretation out of the section. For that reason I am rather inclined to accept Deputy O'Connell's amendment.
It is not quite fair to the section to say, as Deputy Good said, that if a person lives in a tenement house all he has to say is that someone was ill there and his child could not go to school. The section, even in its loosest form, does not allow that interpretation. But, as Deputies suggested, there may be other cases besides illness of the child; there may be illness of the mother. Even in that case the section might be said to meet the situation. The child may have to remain at home because the mother is ill, but that in itself is no reason why three children should remain at home.
I think that the section, strictly interpreted, meets the case. I feel, however, the amendment moved by Deputy O'Connell is to the same purpose, and at the same time it is not as open to misinterpretation on the part of the ordinary person as the existing section is. I quite admit that the form of words suggested by Deputy O'Connell is not satisfactory. Why he went to Northern Ireland for the phrase I do not know. I think that phrase was in the existing Act of 1892.
Mr. O'CONNELL
The words in the Act of 1892 are "or other unavoidable or reasonable cause."
I have a slight metaphysical objection to the section as it stands. The cause may be unavoidable, but it might not be sufficient to keep the child away. In that way it might not be reasonable. It might be quite unavoidable, but it might not be sufficient to justify a child remaining at home. We are then thrown back on the words "prevented from attending school." On the whole, I accept Deputy O'Connell's amendment and will try to see whether we cannot improve the wording of it.
There is a view I should like to express, and as it does not fit in with either that of the Minister or Deputy O'Connell, I am sorry I did not move amendment 4. Sub-section 1 says that the parent of every child to whom this Act applies shall, unless there is a reasonable excuse for not so doing, cause the child to attend school. Then we have sub-section 2, which says: "Any of the following shall be a reasonable excuse." I have been informed that "the following," inasmuch as they set out specific reasons, will, in fact, be taken to be the only reasonable excuses. So far from this being too wide, I am afraid it is going to be taken as too rigid, and that if we define a certain number of reasonable excuses they will be taken to be the only reasonable excuses. That was why I put down amendment 4, which was designed to provide that these, at any rate, would be considered reasonable excuses, but that there may be others. Yet I realise that is probably not the best form in which to convey a particular idea in an Act of Parliament. To insert in sub-section (2) (a) "that the child has been prevented from attending school by the sickness of the child or any unavoidable cause" would seem in the last two or three words to be duplicating what was a reasonable excuse. To put in a paragraph, which is intended to be specific, certain words of this kind, "or any unavoidable cause," which are general, does not seem to be workmanlike. I think that we ought to amend this section in such a way as to allow the sickness of the child to be a reasonable excuse, but leave it open for a Justice to admit other matters which are considered reasonable as justifying the parent in keeping a child away from school and which would not be covered by either of those easily foreseen contingencies. The section as it stands does not allow that at all, and in that way will be defective, as will the amendment of Deputy O'Connell. I should like allowance to be made for the child being kept from school for causes which may not be foreseen and are not put in this section. If we simply define reasons, and say that these are reasonable excuses, we are practically saying that there is no reasonable excuse except those defined, and I think that is a defect.
I desire to follow on the lines of Deputy Johnson. I think he has explained the point of view very clearly—that is, whether the reasonable excuses govern sub-section (2); whether they are to be the only excuses, or whether "reasonable excuse" in the section itself, in sub-section (1), is to be regarded as outside and beyond the particular definition given in the sub-section. My opinion is that the excuses for non-attendance given in sub-section (2) will be the only reasonable ones as the section is drafted, and I do not regard that as satisfactory. I would suggest to the Minister that the best thing is to have the amendment withdrawn, or whatever is the proper procedure, and have a new amendment drafted, because I am not convinced that the suggestions made will meet the intentions of the Dáil. As I read Deputy O'Connell's amendment 6 (a), it means that the words referring to the excuse of some person in the house being ill will be deleted.
Amendment 6 (a) is not being moved at all.
Amendment 6 also deletes that excuse and only substitutes "or any unavoidable cause." I should like to see that excuse maintained as an unavoidable cause. The excuse of sickness in the house should be maintained in the Bill. I am not willing to give my support to the acceptance of an amendment which deletes that provision. I want to call the Minister's attention to the fact, with regard to the statement that two or three children may be retained at home on account of sickness in the house as the Bill stands, that my amendment, 7 (a) is intended to cover that, as it provides that not more than two children shall be excused from attending at school on account of illness in the house. I do not say that the amendment as drafted meets the case, but I think the idea contained in it is sound.
My opinion about the whole matter is that the enforcement of this particular section will be found to be very difficult. If you make the rules and regulations too rigid, you will impose a tyranny upon the parents, and in view of the fact that in a later section the onus is put on the parents to prove that the child was kept at home because of a reasonable excuse, I think there is really no necessity for pressing the amendment in its present form. At the same time, I do not want to stand rigidly in opposition to it. I see there is a difficulty, and I am inclined to think that the reconsideration of the amendment at a later stage might be the best way of meeting the matter. The wording, as it stands, does not seem to be very clear, and is liable to give rise to a great deal of difficulty in regard to its interpretation.
I should like to suggest to the Minister that he should reconsider the wording of the whole Section, particularly of (a), (b) and (c), and that he should approach the matter on somewhat different lines— that reasonable excuse would mean that it should be shown that a child could not attend school without serious risk to its own health or the health of the community or certain other contingencies.
I am rather in favour of Deputy Good's amendment, but I should like an explanation as to the 75 per cent. attendance. If a child had started the session the previous day and had been one day at school, he would have 100 per cent. attendance. I suggest that the attendance for the previous six months should be taken into consideration, or for the previous session. If the session was only for a week, a child could very easily have a high percentage, and then he might be allowed to remain at home without sufficient excuse.
I should like to know from the Minister what proof will be necessary on the part of the parents to put before a Justice to justify keeping the child from school. It would be very hard on poor people to have to supply medical testimony on each occasion. The father may have a headache, or he may have worked too hard on the previous day and may be too lazy to go to work, and the son may be kept at home. In such a case a man would not like calling in a doctor, and if a doctor did come in he would probably like to give him a week's imprisonment for idleness. A good deal should depend on the attendance of the child during the previous session, or during the part of the session that has run. I certainly would not approve of making the section any less rigid, because the trouble hitherto has been that too many children have been allowed to remain away from school, with attendant loss both to themselves and to the country. I would prefer to have the regulations rather more rigid than less. After what has been said on the matter, the Minister could take the suggestions made into consideration and then I would approve of Deputy Good's amendment and of Deputy O'Connell's amendment No. 6.
I think there is fairly general agreement that the section as it stands is not quite satisfactory, but there is also a feeling that all the points are not met by anything which has been proposed up to this. If Deputy Good were agreeable, I would be prepared to let the section go as it is for the present, on the understanding that the Minister will look into the matter with a view to getting a more suitable form of words between this and the next stage. I think he should consider whether it is necessary to have sub-section (2) at all. It might meet the situation simply to say that: "The parent of every child to whom this Act applies shall, unless there is a reasonable excuse for not so doing, cause the child to attend...," and leave it at that. That might meet the situation, because then there will be no necessity for defining, and the point raised by Deputy Johnson will not arise. I therefore suggest to the Minister to consider whether it is necessary to have these definitions, whether sub-section (1) does not really cover everything necessary—"unless there is a reasonable excuse for not so doing." Somebody must then decide whether there is or is not reasonable excuse, and that discretion must rest with the District Justice or whoever has to enforce the Act. That is one way.
No doubt the Minister will be able to refer to legislation in other places. In the Act of 1892 the words used are, "or other unavoidable or reasonable excuse." In the Northern Ireland Act they are, "or other unavoidable cause." In a proposed Bill which did not become an Act, but which was based on the recommendations of a Committee which sat here, the words used were, "that the child has been prevented from attending school by sickness or other reasonable cause." There are also various Acts in the Colonies and Dominions which could be referred to for a better form of words. That is really all that is necessary—to get a more suitable form of words than appears in the section or that has been proposed, and perhaps the best thing to do would be to leave it to the Minister to look into the matter between this and the next stage.
I want to be quite clear as to what I am prepared to do. I am not prepared to give favourable consideration to Deputy Good's amendment, that a medical certificate will be a necessary proof of sickness on the part of a child on every occasion. I do not think that is reasonable, and I do not think it is practicable to expect parents to call in a doctor whenever a child is ill and cannot go to school. They do not do it even in the town; much less can they do it in the country.
The other question raised is a difficulty that I realise quite as much as other Deputies, that of finding an adequate formula to cover what we all have in mind. We want to see that every reasonable excuse is covered, and yet that there is not too great laxity. That is the aim we are all agreed upon, apart from the question of the medical certificate. The question is, how we can attain that object. I doubt if the suggestion made by Deputy O'Connell —to omit all that comes after sub-section (1)—would meet the case.
It would not meet (b) and (c).
No. I could imagine a very different decision being come to if Deputy O'Connell were District Justice from the decision that would be come to if Deputy Heffernan were District Justice. I wonder would Deputy O'Connell think that what is embodied in Amendment No. 8 would be a reasonable excuse if he were District Justice.
He would, of course.
It would not be in the Act.
I should like to see that the District Justice is not given carte blanche so far as excuses are concerned. That is the difficulty. Sickness is an excuse. What should be evidence of sickness? That is a matter that, in the last analysis, must lie with the District Justice. Proof will be adduced before him. All I want to insist upon is that a medical certificate shall not be a necessary portion of the proof. If it is produced, as provided in Section 17, it is evidence, unless it is rebutted, but we are not insisting on it as necessary evidence. Proof must be given. We cannot define fully what the proof is. That could not be done in respect of any case that comes before the District Justice. You could not enumerate the various kinds of proof. The other question is: what exactly is " unavoidable cause "? I quite admit that we have found no better wording up to the present than that suggested by Deputy O'Connell. I promise—with a proviso regarding the medical certificate—to give the various suggestions brought forward in this discussion the fullest consideration and to see whether we can arrive at any better wording than Deputy O'Connell has suggested. I suggest that the amendment be withdrawn, and that Deputy Good's amendment be also withdrawn and I will see if we can do anything to deal with the point between this and the Report Stage.
On the undertaking that the Minister has just given, I am willing to withdraw my amendment. Might I point out, however, that he seems rather inclined to accept the wording of the existing Act? If we are going to get nothing better in the future than the existing Act, we are only wasting time. We are certainly not going to get regular school attendance. Therefore, I suggest that the wording of the existing Act should not be taken as a guide in regard to the Bill we have under consideration. We must get better attendance. If we are not going to get better attendance, there is no use in our wasting time on this measure.
The mere fact that the words were in the existing Act will not influence me in the slightest, if I can get better wording. What I want is a better form of words, which will be at the same time practical. Deputy Good's formula seems to be unpractical.
Will the Minister look at Amendment No. 21?
In the existing Act, while they have down " sickness or other unavoidable or reasonable cause," they have a lot of other excuses which nobody would regard as reasonable or unavoidable.
I do not withdraw my objection to the deletion of the words " or of some person in the house." I hope the Minister will bear in mind, when drafting his new section, that there is, at least, objection on my part to the deletion of these words.
Amendments 5 and 6, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 6a not moved.
I move Amendment 7:
In sub-section 2 (a), line 20, after the word "resides" insert the words "or by the existence of a contagious or infectious disease in the school attendance area within which the child resides."
I do not know if it is necessary to press this amendment. I put it down for the purpose of obtaining information. The Minister will probably be able to inform me if there are Health Acts in force at the present time which make this amendment unnecessary. If there are Health Acts which give power to close schools when infectious disease exists in the district, endangering the health of the children attending the school, this amendment is unnecessary. If there are no such Acts in force, this amendment would be necessary, because we must have regard to cases where infectious disease, such as measles and searlatina, is carried to school by the brothers and sisters of infected children. The parent who has the welfare of his children at heart will naturally want to keep his children at home under such circumstances.
I can tell Deputy Heffernan what the practice has been, and the Minister will probably be in a position to give him the reference. A regulation on this question was made a considerable number of years ago by the Commissioners of National Education, who caused it to be hung up in every schoolroom. This regulation states that a child who is suffering from contagious or infectious disease, or who comes from a home where there is infectious or contagious disease, must be excluded from the school. That has been the practice, and the Minister will, perhaps, give the reference to the actual Act.
I can only agree with what Deputy O'Connell has said. The practice is as has been stated. The medical officer can close the school if there is infectious disease in the district. I am sorry I cannot refer to the exact section of the Act.
I am not referring now to where there is an epidemic in the district. I am referring to individual cases, such as were mentioned— for instance, the child suffering from ringworm. Teachers are bound by a notice, suspended in the school, to exclude from the school a child suffering from ringworm or any other contagious or infectious disease. That is the case even if there is not an epidemic in the district. The question of an epidemic is, of course, a different one, and the medical officer has power, in that case, to close the school. Apart from these considerations, Deputy Heffernan's amendment would not meet the situation at all. He refers to the disease being in "the school attendance area" within which the child resides.
That is what I was referring to.
The school attendance area may be a county or a half county, and it would be unreasonable to exclude a child from school because there was disease at the other end of the county.
The amendment was drafted hurriedly and was not well drafted. I meant to cover the particular school district—an area of two and a half miles or thereabouts. The amendment is down rather for the purpose of getting information than for the purpose of pressing the question to any conclusion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Shall we take amendment 7 (a) (Deputy Heffernan) as not moved? It seems to be consequential.
I would like to hear what the Minister has to say on that amendment. It does seem to be consequential.
The question can be raised on the new draft of sub-section 2, paragraph (a).
That would be contingent on the substituted section by the Minister. I do not know what is the best way to deal with it. If that section does not meet my case, in regard to illness in the family, my amendment could not be pressed at all, because it would be an amendment to what would not exist in the Bill. In view of the existence of the section in the Bill as it stands, I would like to know if the Minister has anything to say on my amendment.
The actual section we will be discussing will be Section 4 as it stands. If the Deputy likes, he can put down this amendment, and if he is not satisfied with my amendment, he can move this amendment.
The Minister will, presumably, put down an amendment of his own which he thinks will meet the case that has been made with regard to the drafting of sub-section 2, paragraph A. If Deputy Heffernan is not satisfied with that amendment, he can re-draft this amendment which is on the Paper in such a way as to make it fit in with that proposed new paragraph. I think that should be satisfactory to Deputy Heffernan. If I may venture a prophecy, it is that we are going to have a second Committee Stage on this Bill. Does that satisfy Deputy Heffernan?
When this Bill passes through Committee Stage to-day, the section will be as it stands. The Minister will introduce an amending section on the Report Stage. If that section does not cover my point about illness in a family, and if it is passed in substitution for the existing section, it seems to me that I will not be in a position to move this amendment at all. I will be knocked out of my amendment.
No. There is no possibility of the Deputy being ousted.
May I suggest that the case would be met by the Minister sending Deputy Heffernan a stop-press copy of his amendment in such time that Deputy Heffernan could consider it and put down an amendment on the Paper for the Report Stage if he thought fit.
This is a Bill in which there is no substantial disagreement between the Minister and any Deputy. The question at issue is a question of machinery and detail; it is a question of how we are going to get a particular thing accomplished. In that case, we are bound to have a second Committee Stage of the Bill. The Minister has been giving promises to consider a number of matters, and he will be bringing up new amendments. These will all be considered in Committee. There is no doubt that we will go through the whole Bill again in Committee. Deputy Heffernan can then bring up his amendment in proper form. He cannot be prevented from doing that.
In that case, I will not proceed with the amendment.
Amendment 7 (a) not moved.
Before Deputy Heffernan moves Amendment No. 8 I desire to ask him whether both amendments, No. 8 and No. 10, are necessary. Does Amendment No. 8 cover all he wants in Amendment No. 10?
I think they are two different things.
I must confess that I drafted the amendments about a month ago and I have not read them since.
Might I suggest to the Deputy to move both amendments together as one might clear up the other?
Would the Minister say which amendment he is disposed to accept?
With the leave of the House, I think we could discuss both amendments together.
Very good.
I beg to move:—
"In sub-section (2) (c), line 28, after the word `grounds' insert the words `or political grounds'."
I do not intend to enlarge very much on these amendments. They are not my own, but were suggested to me by a member of our party who is not able to attend. As we know, members of the teaching profession are affiliated to a political party. To that there may be no objection, as they may belong to any party they like. It has been stated that some teachers, few I hope, take advantage of the fact that they are teaching in schools to issue propaganda in favour of the party to which they belong. A case might arise where a teacher would become quite objectionable to the parents of certain children owing to the inculcation of political doctrines of a kind not acceptable to these parents. It is to meet such cases that these amendments have been put on the Order Paper.
We have heard a good many things from time to time that gave us occasion for surprise and amusement. This, however, is about the most foolish thing that ever emanated from a political mind—that the objection of a parent to the politics of a school teacher is to be accepted as a reason for not sending a child to school. We will have, in Rathmines, for instance, people refusing to send their children to school because the headmaster of one school is a Unionist, because the headmaster of another school is a Sinn Feiner, and because the headmaster of a third school is an old Irish Party man. Thus no children will go to school. If a teacher happens to be the son of a farmer and becomes affiliated with the Farmers' Party, the children of labourers in that district will not be allowed to go to school. There may be some excuse for Deputy Heffernan inasmuch as he has stated that he was not really responsible for his own act, that he was doing something which other people suggested to him, and that he was not thinking of what he was doing. If we are to accept that as a valid reason for putting forward these amendments, I would excuse him, but I would ask him not to do the same thing again.
On last Friday I think it was suggested that though Deputy Heffernan was insistent on the fact that he accepted the general principles of the Bill, he objected to a few details. I suggested, however, that he had managed to put down amendments, the cumulative effect of which would be to destroy the Bill. His ingenuity has now gone further, for he has put down an amendment which in itself, if passed, would destroy the whole Bill. If an amendment of this kind were accepted the Bill would become merely waste paper. He does not object to a teacher being concerned in politics, but he objects to a teacher belonging to Deputy O'Connell's organisation teaching arithmetic to the child of a labourer. If you could get a man belonging to my particular party, which represents all interests in the community, nobody need send their children to that particular school. Deputy Heffernan said that teachers abused their position. I have heard that complaint. I heard it in 1923 in my own county. I do not know if it is true. People suggested it, but nobody came forward to substantiate it. If that be true, it is the business of people who make the charge to substantiate it. Let them bring it before the proper authority, but they should not bring in amendments such as those now proposed which would ruin the whole Bill.
In view of the discussion that has taken place I think the amendments are of considerably more importance than I first attributed to them. The second amendment definitely states in what case objection can be made, that is, when a teacher is engaged in his occupation. We do not object to the political leanings of teachers outside their occupation. I want to point out that it is difficult to substantiate charges of the kind mentioned. A teacher may, while teaching in school, inculcate in a cautious kind of way doctrines that would not meet with the approval of parents of particular children. Confession has been made here that complaints have been made in regard to that state of affairs, and it is in order to meet that condition of affairs in some way that these amendments have been put down. I am not prepared to say that the words in the amendment will exactly fulfil the desire which I have in view but I believe that some form of words could be found that would meet complaints in regard to cases which are stated to exist. I do not think that the arguments used against the amendments have met them in a fair and reasonable way. Those who are against the amendments have rather attempted to make light of them by casting slurs on the mover.
Until Deputy Heffernan had spoken secondly I did not intend to say anything, as it was not my intention to treat the amendments seriously. I believed that no one would take them seriously. Take Amendment No. 10, for instance. It states: "The parent objects to the religious or political teaching or actions of the principal teacher whilst engaged in his occupation as teacher." I presume the Deputy means while the teacher is engaged in his school. The Deputy is careful to mention only the principal teacher. As long as he is all right Deputy Heffernan does not mind what the other men in the school teach. Deputy Heffernan is evidently prepared to sacrifice a considerable number of teachers who are secretaries of Farmers' Unions, who have succeeded in keeping them together in many cases, and who are responsible for the most successful of them. The Deputy is prepared to sacrifice them in order to have a fling at those who are affiliated with the Labour organisation. In these amendments he has displayed an ignorance as to what politics are, an ignorance which is not perhaps confined to the Deputy.
What are politics? Will Deputy Heffernan define for us what are political actions in this connection? If we discuss here an Education Bill and if a teacher is interested in an Education Bill does that become a political action? I say it is a political action. Politics, after all, are nothing more than the science of government and the seeking after the best methods of governing an ordered community. I do not say that we should form some preconceived ideas of what politics are and then prevent anybody else holding any form of politics except our own. We have often heard Deputy Heffernan here state that the schools should be given a rural bias. We have heard about the necessity of giving greater attention to agricultural interests. We have discussed questions of agricultural exports and imports. What are these in the last analysis but politics? It is foolish to put down amendments of this kind and then run away from them, as the Deputy is running away from them. He stated, first, that he had only put them down in somebody else's name and then he proceeded to make charges against teachers which he is not prepared to prove. He says that these things have been stated by somebody else. If a teacher is not doing his work as he ought, there is a remedy for that. That is a matter for the Department. It should see that he does the work for which the nation pays him and that he does it in a proper and efficient way. To say that a teacher's particular brand of politics is not suitable to some parents and that therefore children must remain at home is a ridiculous proposition.
I hope I will approach this question seriously. I think it is undesirable that children at school should be taught to deride the politics held by their parents. I do not think that any conscientious teacher would do it, and I think his sense of duty would be a sufficient safeguard against it. There are two objections to these amendments. First of all, who is to be the judge? The parent is to be the only judge in Amendment 10, A parent may, for instance, believe that two and two make five, and insist that the teaching that two and two make four is reactionary politics. Then again, what are you going to do in cases where parents are of different political views, where, for instance, you have a Cumann na nGaedheal father and a mother holding more advanced views?
What about the children?
I do not think that children under twelve years of age should have political views. Their political views would, I fancy, be in favour of anything that would keep them away from school. But I do think there are difficulties, in the first place, as to who is to be the judge. I would not consent to make the parent the final judge as to whether teaching in a school is political or religious. I think that there ought to be some appeal somewhere, and so I cannot support the amendment. The second difficulty is as to what is the evidence on which the parent is going to act. It refers only to teaching. Presumably it refers to the statements of the children as to what they are being taught and as to what is happening in the school. I have three children attending the same school and I find that they very seldom give an absolutely identical description of what happens in the school. They are not consciously untruthful, but some things make an impression on their minds and they ignore other things, so that I get a picture that is full of discrepancies. I hope I have treated Deputy Heffernan's amendment seriously. I do think—and I know that Deputy O'Connell thinks— that political teaching in schools is wrong, but I do not think that this is a workable amendment, and I advise Deputy Heffernan to withdraw it.
I only want to say a word by way of explanation. What Deputy Heffernan states has been said, and repeatedly said. I received a letter not so very long ago which informed me that a similar letter was being sent to Deputy Redmond and Deputy Good, and the complaint made in it—it came from Deputy Redmond's own constituency—was that the parent sought permission to keep her children at a certain school. They were sent to another school because the boys were growing up. She objected—and her objections were political—to sending her children to this other school because she alleged she was not satisfied with the treatment of the children there.
Her own children?
She was not satisfied with the treatment dealt out to her own children there, and she suggested the intervention of certain Deputies to remove that disability. I showed the letter to some members of the Labour Party but I did not take any further notice of it. But these things are suggested. I do not know whether the other Deputies received such a letter or not, but it is right to say that these statements are made.
I think I have no quarrel with the motive underlying these two amendments. The motive is quite a proper one, and I am sure it is one on which we are all in agreement. But the method whereby Deputy Heffernan has chosen to carry his desire into effect is, I think, grotesque. There is no use reiterating the principle that there should be no political teaching in schools. We are all agreed upon that, but the question is: How is it to be remedied? There has been and there is only one remedy, and it should surely be a sufficient one. That is, as the Minister has said, that it is open to any parent to make a complaint in the proper quarter and substantiate it, if it can be done, by proper evidence. Then, if the Department does not see its way to proceed as it should in the matter by taking action against the particular delinquent, if he or she has been found to be such, further action should be taken to show the whole matter to the light, whether in the Dáil or outside it.
There is a great deal in what has been said about the possibilities of colouring children's minds with certain political sentiments, but I would like to refer to the case mentioned by Deputy Baxter and to inform him that it was not at all a question of politics that entered into the mind of the parent in this case. On the contrary, it was a question which struck her very forcibly as being a purely educational one in the interests of her child, both in the child's present state and in regard to its future career, namely, as to whether subjects should be taught in the school concerned entirely through the medium of Irish. That is what was objected to by this particular person, and the reasons given—which may be dealt with by me or by someone else on some future occasion—were, among others, that she did not consider—and she has a right to her opinion—that this was a proper method of preparing her child for its future struggle in the world. She may be right or wrong in that, but that was not a question of the teaching of politics in the school; it was a question of the method of teaching the subject matter. It was a question as to whether the child should be taught arithmetic or algebra through the medium of Irish, or whether it should be taught through the medium of English. That, of course, is a question of policy for the Ministry of Education, a question which will have to be dealt with sometime or other, and probably pretty soon, but I submit that that is entirely different from stating that it was because the teacher was teaching politics during school hours. If it had been a matter of accusing the teacher of teaching politics, I do not know whether the politics would be taught in English or in Irish. That was not the point. But if it was a matter of a teacher teaching politics, a legitimate complaint should be made and substantiated, and I for one would be only too ready, if no adequate action was taken by the Ministry of Education, to voice my feelings on it here.
This very matter shows up the difficulty of dealing with a question of this kind. The question as to whether Irish should or should not be a compulsory subject in the schools is, I maintain, a political matter, It is politics, politics in the strict interpretation of the word, and this very type of case may arise. Because a teacher in one particular school is enthusiastic about having subjects taught through the medium of Irish, and in carrying out in that way the policy of the Minister for the time being, under Deputy Heffernan's amendment, that might be taken as a reason why a man should keep his child from such a school.
Does Deputy O'Connell want it to be understood that the teaching of subjects other than Irish through the medium of Irish at the instance of the educational authorities is the same thing as teaching politics in school hours?
That is too nice a question for me to answer. It is too fine for me.
I think it is a very different thing.
Amendment 8 does not say "teaching politics," but "on political grounds." That is a different thing.
One political ground might be that the teacher was carrying out the policy of the Minister for Education.
I am relying on Amendment No. 10.
That is even worse, because, as Deputy Mulcahy reminded us, the teacher who is carrying out the policy of the Minister for Education and is enthusiastic in teaching Irish may have his politics in that particular way objected to, and people may say that they will keep their children from school because of that. But I want to say this, that it will be found if any other cases of complaint, such as this one raised by Deputy Baxter are to be investigated, the machinery is there. Parents who have a cause for complaint know where to lodge a complaint—they are always very ready to lodge such complaints— and they will be investigated. But I venture to say that when they are investigated it will be found that it is for some such reason as that mentioned by Deputy Redmond that a complaint is really made. I think that teachers have more than enough to do to comply with the regulations of the Department and to carry on their daily work in the time they are given to do it without troubling themselves about the particular brand of politics that Deputy Heffernan or anybody else may hold. Again, there is the idea that politics should be kept out of the schools. If you accept what I believe is the true definition of politics, it is hard to keep politics out of the schools. We are told, for instance, that we should teach Civics. Suppose a teacher proposes to follow out the programme laid down in Civics. One of the first things he would naturally have to do would be to explain the Constitution under which we live, and the parent who did not believe in or accept the Constitution would naturally object to the teacher teaching anything about it and, under Deputy Heffernan's amendment, would withdraw his child from the school and leave him at home altogether. That is the kind of thing that would happen. Similarly, in the teaching of history, a teacher might teach that Daniel O'Connell was a great man and a parent might hold an absolutely opposite view.
He might have read Sir James O'Connor's book.
He might have other views, and accordingly he might say: "This teacher is teaching politics."
Deputy Heffernan is more afraid of what they might teach about T. J. O'Connell than about Daniel O'Connell.
He may have more reason. I suggest that neither of these amendments can be seriously discussed because they are impracticable and no reason is shown for them. If it can only be said that in spite of the past four, five or six years the country has gone through we can only have these veiled charges that somebody said that somebody told somebody else that such a thing happened, we should not waste more time talking about what may happen in the future.
As an elected Deputy I have privileges and rights. I am entitled to put down amendments, and I am not going to be dissuaded from arguing my amendments by any attacks of the kind that have been made, or any slurs that have come from the Labour benches. Statements that my amendment is foolish and grotesque, and other statements of that kind, will not put me from pressing an amendment if I think it is justified. I did not run away from my amendments, as Deputy O'Connell suggested. I simply made a statement of fact that the amendments were suggested to me by a member of my party who is not here to-day. That does not mean that I am not prepared to support the amendments. I put them down to a certain extent for the purpose of discussing the matter. I am not convinced that in their present form they are feasible and can be incorporated in the Bill. I do not pretend to be an expert draughtsman nor am I in a position to pay a draughtsman to draft amendments for me. But I intend to assert my right, and I am not going to be put off my right to argue my amendments in the same way as every other Deputy has a right to argue them.
Argue them then. You have not done so yet.
That is a matter of opinion. Deputy Johnson gets a certain time in which to argue his points and is not so often interrupted from these benches in his arguments.
Apparently in this amendment I have put down something which touches a spot that is sore and unpleasant. I want to say that the spirit which has been introduced into the argument on the amendment is altogether different to the spirit which I had intended to use. I was careful to state that I was not making general charges against the teaching profession at all. Neither do I think that anything in the nature of saying that the teachers make an unfair use of their position could be attributed to the vast majority of the teachers in the country. I state that without any hesitation whatever. I do say, however, that complaints have been made to me by people that teachers, in certain cases, have used their position to instil and inculcate political doctrines in the minds of the children that were contrary to the doctrines held by the parents of the children and by the class to which the parents of the children belonged. It is all very well to quibble as to what is meant by politics. Deputy O'Connell knows well what I mean by politics.
I do not know what you mean by politics.
Well, if the Deputy does not know I believe that the majority of the members of the House know what is meant by politics. Each political party in this country has a definite programme or policy, or ought to have, and there are certain policies, programmes and doctrines laid down for these different political parties. The Labour Party in England is generally referred to as a Socialist Party. I do not know whether the Labour Party here will accept the definition of socialist or not, but anyhow we know that socialistic doctrines are contrary to the political doctrines held, say, by the Farmers' Party, and if some teachers in Irish schools make use of their position to inculcate socialistic doctrines, then I think parents should be in the position to keep their children away from such schools.
I am not proposing, in this amendment, that there should be any penal clause against the teacher, or that his position should be affected by the keeping of the children at home, because there are other means by which the teacher can be got at in regard to actions of that kind. What I am anxious about is that parents should not be placed in the unfortunate position of having to send their children to schools where, with the means at the disposal of the teachers, they may instil doctrines, in the matter of politics, into the minds of the children which are not in agreement with the political doctrines held by the parents of the children. I do not intend to press this amendment to a division, because I acknowledge that, as it stands, it is not workable. Still I think some method could be devised whereby the difficulty might be got over, that parents would not be forced to send their children to schools in which the teachers were known to be inculcating doctrines of a political kind that were not in agreement with the parents' ideas. Deputy O'Connell said that the secretaries to some branches of the Farmers' Union were teachers. I know that some of them are, and that they are very excellent officials. In regard to that, I would object to these teachers inculcating the political doctrines, but not the economic ones, expressed by the Farmers' Party while engaged within the school.
What are they, apart from the economic doctrines?
It is hard to define them.
It is well to get that admission from Deputy Heffernan: that it is hard to define politics. A few minutes ago he said everyone understood. Deputy Heffernan's amendment is to give a parent the right to keep his child from school because the school teacher abuses his position in the Deputy's view. Surely the remedy against the teacher who abuses his position is not to keep the children from school, but to remove the teacher, and that is the practice. Deputy Heffernan has talked about the Labour Party, but under this proposition you would have the Sinn Fein Party, the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, the Farmers' Party, the Labour Party, the Independents and nondescripts all vieing with each other as to what kind of political doctrine the teacher was to teach. He would probably be teaching the right thing, but inasmuch as the parents held different political doctrines they would be all inclined to keep their children from school, or if they wanted to keep their children from school they would make that a reason or excuse for keeping them away from school. I think Deputy Heffernan can rest assured that there are remedies for the evil which he alleges exists without having to keep children from school.
It is just as well to call attention to the fact that these are only two of the many suggestions offered by Deputy Heffernan to parents that they should be allowed to keep their children away from school. These two indicate that it is the declared policy that the parents should have an excuse for keeping their children from school. I do not know whether Deputy Heffernan realises that the whole effect of his series of amendments, of which these two stand out, is to make null and void the whole Bill. On the specific point, Deputy Heffernan can rest assured that if a teacher is abusing his position by filling the minds of children with seditious doctrines or royalist doctrines or religious doctrines or constitutional doctrines against the wishes of the parents who are not constitutionalists, and if he thinks that that sort of thing is being done, then the remedy is to remove the teacher and not to keep the children from school.
My objection to this amendment is not to its drafting. I have not objected to any amendment on the grounds that it was loosely drafted. I object to the whole idea in this amendment and to its effect on the Bill. The effect of the amendment on the Bill would be to kill it as a Compulsory Education Bill. Deputy Heffernan said that if a teacher was at fault he was not moving for a penal clause to punish the teacher. I think it would be much more natural to do so. If such a thing did not come within the scope of this Bill, certainly the way to deal with the teacher in each particular case would be to bring the case before us and we would deal with it, if there was a case to be dealt with, or if there was an abuse such as he suggests. Does the Deputy mean that it is sufficient for a parent to go before a District Justice and say: "I object to politics. There were politics in such and such a school." Does he think that a mere statement on the part of a parent is sufficient? Surely not. Does the Deputy mean to go further and insist that parents should prove to the District Justice that the teacher was abusing his position? If that is what he means, and if that is his only case, that is worth arguing. It is surely then his duty to substantiate that statement before the proper authority, which he suggests is the District Justice. I can hardly think that the Deputy is serious in suggesting that a mere subjective belief or dislike on the part of the parent to some supposed views that the teacher has expressed at school is sufficient excuse for the parent to keep the child at home. In such a case the District Justice must dismiss the case on the mere statement of the parent that he objects, because that is the amendment as it stands. If the Deputy does not mean that, he must insist on the parent substantiating the statement. The Deputy, however, said that it was not always easy to substantiate these things, and that that was the reason why complaints were not made to the proper authorities. Very good; how is he going to substantiate them before the District Justice? I do not object to the wording of the amendment, but I object to the effect it would have on the Bill if accepted. It would mean that the whole purpose of the Bill would be destroyed.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I beg to move Amendment 9:—
To add at the end of sub-section (2) a new paragraph as follows:—
"(d) That the child is not supplied with sufficient food or clothing."
The intention of the amendment is obvious, namely, that the want of sufficient food and clothing be an excuse for keeping a child from school. The amendment, I think, does not require very much argument. I think in the case of parents who are in such a poverty-stricken condition that they cannot provide their children with sufficient nourishment, or where they are not able to clothe them decently, that these circumstances should be regarded as an excuse for the children's non-attendance at school. This excuse, I hope, will be a rare one, but undoubtedly in certain districts in the country, in the present economic condition of things, cases will arise in which parents will not be able to provide their children with sufficient food to enable them to go long distances to school. School work is very strenuous and children who are not well fed are not able for it. I think that the want of food or clothing should be a sufficient excuse for the non-attendance of children at school.
In opposing the amendment I desire to say that I am as anxious as Deputy Heffernan or any other member of the House to see that children are both well fed and well clothed. I do not see, however, that keeping children at home from school is going to give them any more food than if they were to attend school. In the winter time most of the schools at any rate are provided with good fires. That is more than can be said for many of the homes from which these poor children come, in which, unhappily, there is so much poverty.
I think Deputy Heffernan ought to know that under the existing Act local authorities have the right to strike a rate to provide food for necessitous school children. I would suggest to Deputy Heffernan that he would be doing a benefit to children in such a position as those who would be covered by his amendment, if it were accepted, by getting the members of his Party, who control most of the local authorities, to agree to strike a rate to feed school children. I do not think this amendment should be accepted. It will not help in any way whatever to feed hungry children or clothe children that are half naked.
The amendment will, I hope, so far as there is substance in it, be dealt with in whatever form of words we can hammer out between this and the next stage. That is in connection with what I have promised the Dáil already when we were debating Deputy Good's and Deputy O'Connell's amendments. I do not say that the amendment will take this particular form, but, so far as there is substance in it, it will be dealt with. It seems to me that if a child were suffering from lack of food in a manner that would injure its health, the matter could be covered, but if it is merely urged that the child does not get sufficient food, not as much as a person would like it to have, then I think that Deputy Morrissey has met the case— that there would be that insufficiency at home as well as at school. As long as the child is able to go to school and as long as going to school does not injure the health of the child, I think the provisions of the Bill ought to apply. If it does not injure the health of the child the case will be covered by the main idea at the back of Deputy O'Connell's amendment, but as the amendment stands I am afraid it would simply lead to abuse. It was never intended, I think I have already pointed out, that (a), (b) and (c) would be exactly exhausted. There would be a discretion, of course, left with the District Justices, but I have promised to deal with that and I am trying to get an amendment to meet the views already expressed at an earlier stage of this debate.
The statement made by the Minister is, I understand, that some attempt will be made by him when drafting this new Section to incorporate the idea contained in my amendment. I understand him to say that he does intend to deal with it in some way. I do not necessarily stand by the form of words used in my amendment but I would like to know if I am to understand from the Minister that he intends to deal with this in some form so as in certain extreme circumstances to allow this to be a reasonable excuse for non-attendance. In that event I would be willing to withdraw my amendment.
I was hoping that where there is any reality in the excuse, it might be covered by the amendment I propose to bring in. I take it that so far as there is any reality in the excuse it will be covered by the amendment, but I do not want the Deputy to take it that the lack of clothing in a very vague sense would be a sufficient excuse to keep a child at home from school. There might be very few tenements in Dublin, or very few homes in the country that might not avail of that excuse, and if you insert a clause definitely mentioning a thing of that kind, you are suggesting an excuse and putting it into the mouth of the parent. That is the difficulty I find in definitely mentioning things of that kind.
The point about the Minister's statement is this: It is not quite clear what he intends, but if some such phrase as "unavoidable cause" would cover this amendment—
Would not the Deputy wait and see?
I have a right to find out what the Minister intends. I have only got the Minister's pious expression of an intention. It is not any support of any kind or any approval of any kind of my amendment. I do not know what the Minister regards as the more important element, the lack of food or the lack of clothing. I am inclined to think that the lack of clothing would be the more important, but if he would consider the matter and promise to incorporate this idea in his amendment, I will be satisfied with regard to food.
I was not giving expression to any pious opinion. I told the House as definitely as possible that I intended a matter of this kind to be covered by a general clause but I would object very strongly to naming an excuse of this kind, the mere naming of which would be an invitation to abuses.
I think in any case I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move Amendment 11:—
"To add at the end of sub-section (2) a new paragraph as follows:—
"(f) that the sanitary accommodation of the school is imperfect."
This is another amendment brought forward more or less for the purposes of having a discussion. I am not inclined to press the amendment. I want merely to get an expression of opinion from the Minister, because I realise that this would not be a very workable amendment. It is important of course, but it depends on a factor about which I have been talking for a long time. It depends on the importance of the school accommodation and especially the sanitary accommodation. My idea with regard to compulsory attendance —it is putting the car before the horse —is that we should put the schools into a condition to receive the children and to hold the children during the day in a suitable and in a comfortable way. A great many schools at the present time are not fit for that purpose. They are too small, often badly ventilated, often very unsanitary, and in many ways they are not at all what schools should be. Although I am one of those who are anxious for economy in every thing connected with State expenditure, I am not inclined to stand for economy in regard to school buildings. It is the one thing in which we should have no economy if we are to run our State at all worthily. I put down this amendment more for the purposes of discussion than anything else. I do not think it is an amendment that could be pressed because there are many schools where the sanitary accommodation is so bad that the amendment would be quite unworkable.
I agree with everything that Deputy Heffernan has said with regard to the condition of many of our school buildings, but I think this is not the time nor the place to discuss that particular matter. There are and there will be other opportunities to discuss it. If we were to wait, as this amendment suggests, until the sanitary accommodation of all the schools in the country were perfected—because that is what the amendment means—the Bill would become entirely unworkable. He says that one of the reasons for keeping the children at home would be the defective sanitary accommodation. I think if we were to wait until the school buildings were perfected in the matter of sanitary accommodation, it would simply wipe out the Bill altogether, becuse it will be a long time until the sanitary accommodation of all our schools is perfect. While there is general agreement, as has been shown on more than one occasion here, that the sanitary accommodation of some of our schools is far from perfect, and while I welcome very much the expression of opinion given by Deputy Heffernan, I think we should not delay the passing of this particular Bill, pending the time when these buildings are equipped with proper sanitary accommodation. At this particular junction, this amendment, if put into the Bill, would render the whole Bill unworkable. This is not the time to go into that matter and discuss it, because it could not be adequately dealt with.
I ask the leave of the Dáil to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
This amendment stands in my name:—
To add at end of sub-section (2) a new paragraph as follows:—
"(g) that the inclemency of the weather, the age and physical condition of the child being taken into consideration, was such as to justify in the opinion of the principal teacher the non-attendance of the child."
Perhaps there is no necessity to press this amendment either, because I think it will come under the sub-section that the Minister has undertaken to recast. Possibly the Minister would consider the form that this amendment might be embodied in when considering that sub-section. I can assure the Minister that I had no desire to weaken the forces of the Bill in any way or to whittle down the powers it gives the Minister. I think it is possible for every child to be subject to the discipline of the weather as well as to the discipline of the school; but we live in a country where we have weather which would give a reasonable excuse for non-attendance. We occasionally have heavy snow-falls, floods and such things, and I thought it reasonable to make provision for such an excuse as this and at the same time I tried to see that that excuse would not be abused. For that reason I thought it advisable that it should be laid down that some responsible person should decide what was inclement weather of such a kind as to form a reasonable excuse. However, the Minister will possibly take this point into consideration when recasting the sub-section that he has promised us.
I am afraid if this amendment were put into force you would not have any attendance at a national school during the last three months.
I would like Deputy Good to develop that. Does the Deputy mean to say that the principal teachers would assent to that being a reasonable excuse?
If inclement weather were a reasonable excuse for non-attendance, I say we would have no attendance at our schools for the last three months.
I do not think that this is a matter that should be thrown on the shoulders of the principal teachers. I think a matter of this kind, that is, as to what is a reasonable excuse, should be a matter for the discretion of the District Justice, and I cannot see any reason why it should be segregated out and the deciding authority made the principal teacher and not the District Justice. It might also—though this is a minor point and I do not want to press it—throw an undue burden on the principal teacher, if he had to decide, in any particular case or against any particular pupil, that a good case had been made out under this particular amendment. The principal teacher would have a fair amount to do in supplying "absences" to the Gárda Síochána. Again I reiterate what I said already about the bad effect that is likely to follow from the mentioning of excuses, and I am sure Deputy Alton will appreciate that. I think it would be better if we could agree on a general formula than to deal with the matter in detailed amendments.
I agree with the Minister and I think the wording of excuses like this and suggesting excuses would be injurious. Why I put on the principal teacher the onus of deciding whether the weather was inclement or not was so as not to leave that matter to be decided by the parents. I agree with the Minister that the District Justice would be the best authority on that matter. Perhaps the Minister would get some formula to cover this particular case as to whether the weather would be really prejudicial to the health of the child.
Would it not be better to put the parents in a position to know what will be the evidence that will be sufficient to put before the District Justice in this matter. I do not like the idea of putting the onus upon the principal teacher of saying whether the weather is sufficiently bad through snow, rains or otherwise to justify the keeping of the child at home. It may be to the interest of the principal teacher to have the attendance high, and perhaps then he might, through selfish reasons, over-step the bounds. I do not say he would but it would be possible. I would like to know what would be the position of the parents in this matter when the inspector brings up the child before the District Justice for absence from school. The parents would want to know their position in the matter. I have not noticed in any part of the Bill a definition of what is a reasonable excuse, apart from the doctor's certificate.
The Minister has given enough assurances that he will consider this point on the re-drafting of the section, and I think it will be possible for him to meet my point. I am not pressing the matter of putting the onus on the principal teacher, and I agree with the Minister that it would be wrong. I beg the leave of the Dáil to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
There is an amendment standing in my name which reads as follows:—
Before sub-section (3) to insert a new sub-section as follows:
(3) In the consideration of any question as to whether an excuse for failure to comply with this section is or is not a reasonable excuse, regard may be had to the general regularity of attendance of the child at school.
Pending the production of the Minister's new amendment I do not move this amendment.
Amendment not moved.
I beg to move to "delete sub-section (3)."
This amendment deals with what I referred to on the Second Reading of the Bill as one of the main blots on the measure, and I hope to convince the Dáil that this sub-section is unnecessary, This sub-section proposes, in effect, that children who have reached the age of ten years may be absent from school on not more than ten days during the period beginning on the 1st April, and ending on the 15th May. With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle I suggest that we should take sub-sections (3) and (4), as it would be for the convenience of the Dáil, if the Minister does not object to it. They are really on the same principle and the same wording, but deal with two different periods of the year. Amendments (13) and (17) deal with them, and ask that both be deleted. I suggest that we might discuss both of them together. I am proposing to delete these two sub-sections. I might say before I go into a general discussion that there is an amendment down in my name to make the age fourteen, but, of course, that would be dependent on another amendment. I put down that, hoping that my first amendment raising the school age would be carried. That would be dependent on what happens to the Minister's amendment, and so far as that is concerned I would leave it over to the Report Stage. I want to show that there will be a very great interference with the progress of the child's education if the exemptions down in these sections are inserted in the Bill.
The school year consists of 200 days; that number represents the annual attendance required on the part of each child. There are really 260 school days in the year, leaving out Saturdays and Sundays, but between vacations and occasional closings the sixty days are taken up. I maintain that the time available for the education of a child is all too short to impart to it the knowledge we would like to see a child possessing when leaving the primary school. No doubt it will be argued that a child of that age would be very useful at home. For that matter one could argue that the age ought to be reduced to eight years, and no doubt something would be found at home which the child could do. The arguments that can now be used as to the usefulness of the child are in no way different from the arguments used by those who were interested over 100 years ago in having child labour in the mines and factories of England. Progress dictated that it was in the interests of civilisation generally that the child should not be exploited in that particular way, and it was insisted that the proper place for the child during these years was at school.
If you take into consideration the school hours—and I put this especially to Deputies on the Farmers' Benches, who will, no doubt, argue that the child would be useful at home—you will find that in the spring and summer months there are two, three, or four hours available each day during which a child could be engaged on its father's farm doing odd jobs. Those hours would be outside school hours and surely that ought to be sufficient time in which to engage the services of a child of tender years. Saturdays are free, too, and there is no reason whatsoever why extra exemptions should be given. In spring and autumn the usual holidays become due. At Easter the holidays extend over 10 days or a fortnight and in summer time the children are allowed vacation from four to six weeks. These vacations do coincide— they should be made coincide—with operations on the farm.
The only argument that can be put forward in favour of exemption is the need for the child's services during important operations on the farm. I maintain that the three or four hours which are available on ordinary school days, in addition to free Saturdays, represent sufficient time in which to employ a child; it is an ample period for working a child of tender years. We adopted here the Article of an International Convention and I hold that this section is entirely contrary to that Convention. Article I of that Convention reads as follows:—
Children under the age of fourteen years may not be employed or worked 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.
I think that is very clear and definite.
We are going to fix the hours of school attendance.
You are not. That is not the proposal. Deputy Baxter's argument cannot hold. If his argument were to apply, any country could adopt the Articles of this International Convention and then decide upon fixing the hours of school attendance at, say, 20 hours a year. To do that would be absolutely ridiculous. The next Article of the Convention says:—
For the purpose of practical vocational instruction the periods and the hours of school attendance may be so arranged as to permit the employment of children on light agricultural work and in particular on light work connected with the harvest....
You should not read that.
I am reading it in order to meet the case that probably will be put up. The second Article of the Convention goes on to say:
"provided such employment shall not reduce the total annual school attendance to less than eight months."
I want to stress that. The second Article provides for practical vocational instruction and it clearly contemplates teaching of some kind or other. It refers to children who are being taught rural science or some branch of agriculture. I maintain that that is the kind of practical vocational instruction that is referred to. It may be held—I do not think it will be— that a young lad going to the creamery in the mornings, driving a donkey cart, is engaged in practical vocational instruction.
Is that a branch of rural science?
It is not the kind of vocational instruction that I have in mind, but I believe that that is the class of thing he will be kept at home for. No doubt it would be held that such work would be a convenience to the parent. Undoubtedly it would be, but it could be equally argued that it would be a great convenience to the parent to keep the child at home altogether. A parent could say that a lad of 10, 12 or 13 years would be very useful around a farm, running messages and doing odd jobs.
It is a question of whether the child's interests should be paramount and whether the parent should not be prepared to make a sacrifice. In England, up to 1918, they had exemptions, but in 1918 an Act was passed specifying that no exemptions would be given under the age of 14 years. That applies not only to the industrial but to the agricultural areas of England. I would ask Deputies to agree that up to 14 years no child should be kept at home to do any work.
It will be contended that a child learns many useful lessons around a farm by doing light jobs, but as against that I submit that there are 165 days during which the school is closed and there is ample opportunity during that period for a child to do odd jobs. I say that up to the age of 14 years children should be kept at school every day on which the school is open unless illness or some other cause prevents them attending. While there may be some slight sacrifice on the part of parents, in the end the community as a whole will benefit.
In taking up the consideration of this Bill a good many Deputies believed—and they still believe —that when it becomes law and is put into operation it will only operate in a minority of cases. They believe that the law will only have to be applied in the case of careless parents in the towns and the country and that in the case of the majority of our people it will not be because the law compels them to send children to school that they shall do so, but because it is in the best interests of the land.
Hear, hear.
When, in a new State like this, we apply a law of this nature, I hold we have to consider how far its application will bring us on the road to success. The manner in which the law is administered will do a great deal towards making for success or failure in the future educational policy. When Deputy O'Connell was speaking he made one almost think that he had forgotten, since he left the country, what the existing conditions are there. He almost makes one think that the few years he has been resident in Dublin have made him feel that the conditions of the small farmers in the country are different from what they were when he observed them ten years ago.
It is because I have not forgotten them that I am taking this view.
Lest Deputy O'Connell has forgotten, I will tell him that the conditions are just the same to-day as when he was teaching in a rural school. Economic conditions as we knew them, and as we know them still, demand that at certain periods of the year parents should have the services of their children. For short periods during the spring and autumn the value of a child on the farm cannot be overestimated. In spring, when the seed is being put into the ground, farmers get as valuable a service from the child as from any man.
When Deputy O'Connell tells us that they had exemptions in England up to 1918, he was pointing to the road that we should travel. When the English Parliament started on the road of compulsion in the matter of education they recognised that they could not apply the law ruthlessly at the start. They had reason and judgment on their side. If, through the operation of the law, a state of affairs is brought about so that parents recognise that education is essential for progress, it will be much easier to get them to accept the law. Deputy O'Connell now wants us to do something here that will immediately get the people in the rural districts up against the law. If the State is going to demand of parents that every day, in fine weather or foul, children must go to school regardless of home requirements, then I say that many of our people will protest very vehemently and, instead of making them anxious for education, for education's own sake, the compulsory methods we seek to apply will have the effect of getting their backs up.
You cannot make a comparison between an industrial country like England and an agricultural country like ours. In England, in most cases children exempt from school go into a factory. They go to work for an employer, and not in their own homes. These conditions are not comparable with ours. When the Deputy suggested that we were parties to an international convention which binds us to do certain things in the matter of sending children to school, I pointed out that we had the right to regulate the hours for attendance at school and put our interpretation on that.
Then the convention is useless?
That may be Deputy Johnson's interpretation; it is not mine. We know that at present teachers in practically every case fix the holidays during the period when work has to be done on the farms. Very often, however, the spring holidays occur during the wettest period of the year and potatoes cannot be put in. Then the fine weather may come just when the children have to go back to school. I suggest to Deputy O'Connell that on three-fourths of the small farms, whether or not the crop can be put into the ground in good condition depends on whether the children are available to assist in the work. Deputy O'Connell knows that as well as I do. If Deputy Good thinks that provisions which would apply to Dublin and Rathmines are equally applicable to the rural areas, he should come down to the country districts for a week or two when we are trying to get our crops in and he will then see that the conditions are very different. We of the Farmers' Party are as anxious as any other Deputies that this Bill should be passed in such a way as to make it valuable as a weapon to secure good attendance at school, but we feel it must take the form of a reasonable measure. I suggest that its success when put into operation will depend more on its reasonableness and the manner in which it is administered, than on inserting extreme powers and trying to carry them into effect. If, after a few years, the educational authorities feel that there is a necessity for tightening up its provisions, I suggest that the Dáil and the people of the country will be more amenable than they are to-day. The mind of the country will be prepared for it; the parents will feel that there is an obligation on them to send their children to school; the children themselves will have got into the habit of going to school, knowing that they must go; and we will have laid a foundation that will make it easier to work up to a higher plane. I hope that the Minister will stand by the section.
Deputies Baxter and Heffernan have argued very much along the same line with regard to this Bill. Neither one nor the other of them, I take it, favours compulsion. Deputy Heffernan possibly is a little more outspoken than the cautious Deputy Baxter. Deputy Baxter has stated that if voluntary attendance is given a fair trial, and if in a few years it is found to be wanting, he will be one of the first to assist in making the Act much more drastic than he would like to see it at present. I doubt if we will ever get a stronger feeling in this country in favour of tightening up than we have to-day. All sections in the country are practically unanimous to-day in feeling that a much more stringent measure is necessary than that which is at present in force. We are told that it is very desirable to instil a desire into the children of school age to attend school. That desire was very much stronger ten or fifteen years ago than it is to-day.
What has happened during the last ten or fifteen years in this and the adjoining country has unsettled the minds of parents, and that unsettlement has extended to the children attending our schools. If you want evidence of that fact, talk to parents about the value of vocational training and of the training given in our technical schools. They will be almost unanimous, even in the agricultural districts, in saying that it is a most useful asset to any boy or girl to possess the training that is obtained in technical schools. What is the position at present? Splendid schools, splendid equipment; schools empty, cinemas and dancing-halls full. What is the use of trying to instil a desire into children to attend school while these other attractions exist? To my mind there is nothing but compulsion to meet such circumstances. I hope compulsion will not be limited to the elementary schools, but that in due course it will be applied to technical schools.
What I object to in this proposal is that it recognises a break in educational work. It has been suggested that at two different periods of the year children attending the primary schools should be at liberty to absent themselves for ten days, provided they are engaged in light agricultural work. To my mind, that is an out-of-date principle. Possibly it would have been acceptable 25 years ago, but people now look upon the interests of the children and the importance of educational work from quite a different point of view than they did then. I think it will be agreed that even where there are only one or two children the parents would be justified in making a sacrifice in the interests of the children in order that their school course should not be interrupted. If the arguments put forward in favour of this proposal were admitted, stronger arguments could be put forward for keeping children from school. I can picture the case of a poor widow with a family of six or eight children, living in a tenement house, who has to go out to work in order to maintain her family, making an appeal that the elder girl of from 12 to 14 years of age be permitted to stay at home to look after the younger children. When you come to consider the two cases, there is, I think, more force behind the argument in the latter case than in that put forward here.
Under the existing Act, what I have just mentioned has unfortunately become a practice. Parents have kept the elder children from school in order to mind the younger ones. What is the consequence of that? Between the ages of sixteen and eighteen these boys and girls are entitled to unemployment benefit. Fortunately we were able to get the same qualification attached to that benefit in this country as attaches to it in Great Britain, and in order to qualify for benefit they must attend a certain number of courses at a special school. That is what is known as the educational qualification. What was found when that provision was put into force? Of the girls who claimed unemployment benefit in Dublin, ten per cent. were illiterate. That has come to light within the last few years. To my mind, it is an appalling fact, in the state of civilisation we are supposed to live in, that in the capital city of the Free State there should be ten per cent. of illiterates amongst a certain section of the community. That will be the effect of allowing breaks of this kind in the educational course. There may be hard cases, but it will be agreed that hard cases make hard law. It would be much better that parents should make the sacrifice than that a provision of this kind should be inserted.
Deputy Baxter seemed to think that this is the first experiment made in regard to compulsory school attendance in this country.
In the country as a whole.
Yes. This is not the first experiment made. We have had a Compulsory School Attendance Act on the Statute Book, as I reminded the House on previous occasions, for thirty years. We are now engaged in the task of tightening up that Act. The Deputy's argument was that we should at first go slowly, and that, later on, when we saw how the Act was operating, we could proceed to tighten it up. We have been going much too slowly for the past thirty years. We know the result of that slowness. Deputy Baxter himself has been eloquent in telling us the result of it on more than one occasion. One of the faults in the 1892 Act was the number of exemptions which it permitted. Deputy Baxter tells me that I must have forgotten the conditions in the country when I used the arguments which I did. That is not so. It is because I know the conditions in the country that I am so keen about deleting this provision. It was my experience always—I am supported in the view by many teachers throughout the country—that it was the thrifty and hard-working man who sent his children to school regularly, and that it was the careless parent who took advantage of every loophole in the Act to keep his children at home. That is what is going to happen in this case.
The Bill is doing what the Minister objected to do earlier in the debate— putting an excuse into the mouths of people who want to keep their children at home. It is giving a special period within which anyone can keep his child at home. All that the parent has to say is that the child is engaged on the farm. He may be only keeping the cat from the fire, but that would be interpreted as sufficient reason to keep the child at home. Whether he is wanted at home or not, the careless, indifferent parent will allow the child to stay at home during the extra days allowed under this Bill, because the child, in that case, will be the boss. There may be occasions, as Deputy Baxter points out, where a couple of days work may be necessary on the farm, but I hold that that is covered by the Act already, when it is stated that a "reasonable excuse" will be sufficient. Here you are supplying a special excuse and giving special reasons to a parent to keep his child at home during an extra period in the year. If I do not know the agricultural conditions in the country, I presume Deputy Baxter will not say that the Chairman of his Party is ignorant of them. Here is what Deputy Gorey said on the Second Reading in discussing this particular section:—
"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. 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 period I am referring to—the gathering in and thinning...."
That is what Deputy Gorey said. He used the argument which I have been using—that the vacation periods and the hours outside the hours fixed for attendance at school will meet any necessity there is. Then you have the additional safeguard in the discretion that the enforcing authority will have. But suppose the parent is taken to court. If he puts up a reasonable excuse, it will be accepted by the District Justice. But I do object to putting those excuses at the disposal of every parent who lives in a rural district and who wants to make use of them. He has only to say that the child was needed around the farm in order to excuse himself for keeping him from school.
I want to stress the point made by Deputy Good regarding the break in the child's attendance. The habit of going to school regularly is an estimable and beneficial one. If there is a break of a day in the child's attendance it means more than missing the particular lessons of that day. It means that the child is unable to follow the course for the next three or four days. It is the general experience of teachers that if a child comes irregularly to school —if he misses even one day a week—it takes him quite a long time to pick up the threads of the lesson taught on the day he was at home. How far this will be increased when the child is kept at home for an extra ten days can be imagined. The net result will be that in our rural schools all the children from the age of 10 will be at home on those days.
It would be better that the schools should be shut.
It would, because the classes will be disarranged. The teacher will be inclined to ask himself why he should bother about half the number of children, when the other half are at home and will remain at home for the next ten days. He may consider it better to start anew when those who are at home return to school. There is really no necessity for this special exemption. The number of vacation days, the number of days in which the school is not in operation, and the number of hours in the day outside the school attendance hours in which a child can be engaged on special work is sufficient already. To have these exemptions upsets the school and interferes with the work. They are used chiefly by the parent who has least interest in his child's welfare— the careless and thriftless parent.
Many Deputies, when speaking on this subject, seem to lose sight of the economic position in the agricultural districts and the practical problems which have to be faced. We are all idealists in regard to education but, in view of the circumstances in which we find ourselves, we have to moderate our ideals. My view of this section is that the arguments in favour of it are almost altogether economic. I am in favour of the principle of compulsion in regard to school attendance. My agreement with that principle is rather reluctant. I believe that, to a certain degree, compulsion and education are contradictory terms. When you have compulsion, you lose, to a certain extent, the desire or ambition that should exist among the people to gain the advantages which accrue from education for their children. Along with that, you tend to take away what should be the natural responsibility of parents to do the best for their children and to fit them, through education, to make their way in the world. We are faced with definite economic difficulties in the country and we are faced then with the problem of school attendance. We realise that the only solution of the school attendance problem is compulsory attendance. But I think that we ought to start with the minimum amount of compulsion that the circumstances require. As time goes on, we will discover the defects in the present measure and the Dáil will always be available to extend the compulsion to any degree which those defects show to be necessary.
Deputy Baxter reminded Deputy O'Connell that the economic conditions in the country are such that the smaller farmers are maintaining their position largely by the help of their children— some of them of school-going age. Those may not be ideal conditions, but they are the conditions which exist and which we have to deal with. If we make the provisions of this Bill too tight in regard to the attendance of children at school, we will place the parents in such a position that they will not be able to maintain themselves or their children, and the children accordingly will not be able to go to school. We have really a choice of two evils. There are other amendments in my name dealing with this section. It is a pity that almost all the amendments are not discussed together, because they are inter-related to a certain extent. Deputy O'Connell quoted Deputy Gorey's statement regarding the periods at which the work of children on the farm is required. I am in agreement with Deputy Gorey in that statement, and I have put down an amendment which, if accepted, will extend the period during which the exemption can exist until June, the idea being to include in the period the time in which the thinning of turnips and work of that kind is done.
The Deputy's amendment also proposes to increase the number of days.
Yes, but that is only portion of it. On the farm, it is found that the months of May and June, when the turnips have to be thinned, are the months that children are most required. Child labour is most suitable for that kind of work. Deputy Egan is interested in sugar beet growing. As Deputy Egan knows, one of the greatest essentials to sugar beet growing is continuous labour. He must know that sugar beet growing will not be an economic proposition in this country if it has to be carried on by paid labour—if able-bodied labourers have to be paid full wages. That may not be an ideal state of affairs. The children of the small farmers can be employed to do a great deal of the thinning and weeding of the sugar beet. That is work which can be carried out in the period which this Bill gives—the ten days for the work of children on the land. But I think it cannot be availed of unless the Minister sees his way to accept the portion of my amendment which extends the date up to which the exemption will be allowed. It is hardly fair to compare this, an agricultural country, with England, an industrial country, or to compare the kind of work which children do on the land with the industrial work which children do in the English towns. Everybody will admit that child work in the factories in the industrial centres of any country is undesirable. The health of the growing child is seriously affected by the conditions under which he has to work in these factories.
That argument does not apply to agricultural work, provided the child is not forced to do that work all the year round. I believe that in the case of a child employed on agricultural work of the lighter kind, provided it is not forced to work excessive hours, such work is good for the health of the child. I believe that work in the harvest field is of advantage to the health of the child and helps to build up a strong and vigorous body. Deputy O'Connell raised a rather technical point in regard to the Convention which has been accepted by the Oireachtas. If his point is correct, the section of the Bill is wrong.
That is my contention.
I do not think that his point is correct. I maintain that Article 2 of the Convention governs that, and that the question of children being employed on light work of a vocational kind seems to imply that children in agricultural areas can be employed on agricultural work without abrogating the instruction. I am rather surprised to find Deputy Good, whom I have always regarded as an exponent of the policy of leaving people alone and allowing them to do their work in their own way, becoming a strong supporter of compulsion. The examples which he gave as regards children in the slums and towns are not applicable to this section, which deals only with agricultural work. Desirable as may be attendance at school, the first requirement which the State calls for is, at least, that we shall be able to maintain our country in an economic condition. As the Dáil knows, agriculture is the basis of our economic welfare. Agriculture, as everybody recognises, is at present at a very low ebb. We are attempting to keep it from getting still lower, and one of the greatest necessities in carrying out our intentions is to carry on the necessary work on the farms, and carry it on with the least possible expenditure to the farmer. I maintain that the acceptance of the amendment would have an effect on the economic condition of the country which would not counter-balance the advantages which we would gain by the compulsory attendance of our children at school.
This Bill has been introduced because the country needs it and because the measure which was supposed to be in force, as Deputy O'Connell pointed out, for thirty years has not been carried out. We know what the results of that have been. Deputy Good has told us that in towns, 10 per cent. have been found to be illiterate. That also applies to the country generally. We all know, as Deputy Heffernan has stated, that agriculture is not profitable. We have heard that Irish education should be placed on lines similar to those adopted in Denmark. If, however, it is argued on the other hand that children should be retained at home to do work that should, perhaps, be done by adults, they will not be enabled to become experts. Children want to learn better methods and it is only in the schools that they will learn them. If you allow children to remain a certain number of weeks away from school you break their school course which, as every teacher knows, is a decided disadvantage. When children have to remain at home through illness we know that they have a lot of ground to make up when they go back. Children should not be allowed to remain at home on a flimsy pretext. The point was raised by Deputy Baxter as to whether the two points of view could be worked out in a satisfactory way by the Minister. The school course occupies eight months of the year, but children are wanted at home at certain periods. Would it not be possible to leave the school term as it is and alter the hours of attendance? If the Minister could do something in that direction I think it would help. I would like to see the custom of putting children to agricultural work done away with.
We all wish it.
Although I am opposed to compulsion, I think that as parents have not done their duty under the previous Act they should be compelled to send their children to school regularly in order to make them useful citizens of the State. I maintain, of course, that a boy doing agricultural work on the farm with his father is getting a certain amount of education. Unfortunately there are no plots attached to national schools. These should have existed all along, as the children would then have got a certain amount of training in agriculture.
Agreed to report progress.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Progress reported. Committee to sit again on Thursday, 11th February.
resumed the Chair.
The Dáil went into Committee.