Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 12 Feb 1926

Vol. 14 No. 9

SCHOOL ATTENDANCE BILL, 1925—THIRD STAGE (RESUMED).

SECTION 8

I beg to move Amendment 29 (a), standing in the name of Deputy Heffernan, which reads:—

Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

"Any officer of a School Attendance Committee for a school attendance area situate in a county borough or urban district mentioned in the Schedule to this Act shall be empowered to initiate and conduct prosecutions under this Act."

The obvious intention of this amendment is to permit a school attendance officer to conduct prosecutions and to take reasonable steps for issuing summonses, etc., before the District Justice in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. The obvious intent is not to have it obligatory to employ legal assistance, as it is felt that the cost of such prosecutions would perhaps fall in an unduly heavy manner upon the delinquents. It is felt that it is desirable that the school attendance officer should have power to conduct these prosecutions. I anticipate that there will be an objection. It may be contended, from various sides of the Dáil, that this officer would act on his own, independent of the wishes of the Committee. But we are all agreed that the Committee should determine whether a prosecution is desirable or otherwise in those eight boroughs and urban districts given in the Schedule. There is no desire that the officer should stand out on his own, and it is only on the direction of the Committee that he should be at liberty to proceed before the District Justice to conduct a prosecution.

If the Minister would give us his advice that the passing of this motion would mean that the school attendance officer would have a statutory right to appear before the Courts, and conduct his case. I would be inclined to approve of it. I think the practice in vogue in respect of other particular functions and Departments—that the officer of the Department conduct the case in court—is quite a good one when the officers are specialists in the matter. It should not be obligatory upon every such official to employ counsel and solicitor. I take it that that is the purpose of the amendment. I am not sure that it will be fulfilled by the passing of this amendment, but if the Dáil will agree that that is a desirable thing, then I should hope that it would be embodied in safe phraseology on the Report Stage. On the other hand, it seems to me that the section as it stands, indicating that the School Attendance Committee shall be the enforcing authority, implies that it shall act through some person, that person being the officer. I do not think it would be desirable, if there is to be a School Attendance Committee, that the Committee, as a whole, should be required to attend Court. They must do their work through the officers. I would be inclined to agree that the officer should be given statutory authority to attend the Court and plead, whatever the Rules of Court that are yet to come may say.

When I first read this amendment, I misconceived its purpose. I thought that it was simply an effort to make provision so that the Committee need not have every individual case brought before it, and that, in fact, the Bill would delegate powers to the school attendance officer to prosecute without the case coming before the Committee. The point that Deputy Connor Hogan now raises is a new one, so far as I am concerned, and I cannot answer it. I would prefer if it were left over to the next Stage, and I will, in the meantime, get information as to what the legal effect of the amendment, as now explained by the Deputy, would be. I think it would be more advisable to leave it over. I am not capable of dealing with that aspect of it at the moment.

I am quite willing to leave it over, on the understanding given by the Minister.

If the Deputy brings it up again on the next Stage, I will then be in a position to give it consideration.

Amendment 29a, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed—"That Section 8 stand part of the Bill."

I would like to have some views expressed by the Minister and other Deputies as to whether in the scheme of the Bill there could be embodied some local committee which would be in a position to consult at least with the Gárdaí. The Gárdaí, as the enforcing authority, is accepted by the majority of the people concerned, not because it is ideal, but because the circumstances, more or less, compel us to accept it. Some of us feel that it would be well if there were a local civil opinion available to which the Gárdaí could apply for assistance, consultation and advice—without taking from the Gárdaí the discretion, that there would be an authority set up dealing with educational matters to which the Gárdaí might have access, and which would be advisory to the Gárdaí in regard to such matters as prosecutions. In the Bill as it stands, there is no provision for such a thing. Speaking for myself, I feel that there ought to be some provision made whereby committees acquainted with the local circumstances and local feelings could be applied to by the Gárdaí and consulted by them in regard to the enforcement of the Act. I have no specific suggestion to make, but I should like to have the views of the Dáil expressed on the matter, if there are any views.

I am of the same opinion as Deputy Johnson so far as the enforcement of this Bill in rural areas is concerned. There ought to be a civil committee in each rural district. The tendency of the section is the setting up of an autocracy or a bureaucracy. The whole trend of government in this country, as far as I can see, is towards autocracy.

I am rather surprised that Deputy O'Connell does not give his views on this matter. I am wondering whether they are in full agreement with Deputy Johnson's. I notice that Deputy Johnson was very careful on a couple of occasions to explain that he was speaking purely in his personal capacity at the moment. The difficulty I see in this matter is that I am afraid it would interfere very seriously with the effective administration of the Bill. However you might try to avoid it, it seems to me you would have a divided authority over the Gárdaí in this particular matter. There would be the ordinary authorities on the one hand, and there would be this advisory committee on the other hand. They could not consult them in many of the individual cases. School committees would probably not meet frequently enough, and even if there was any necessity for consultation, it seems to me it would be loss of time. On the ground of loss of time, and on the ground of this divided authority, in practice, I am not favourably inclined to the suggestion.

The difficulty, of course, so far as Deputy McBride is concerned is that when it comes to enforcing the law you have to enforce the law. That is not pleasant, and it is easy to condemn it as autocracy. If we pass this Bill, and if parents do not send their children to school, they are evading the law and the enforcing of it is a matter undoubtedly for the enforcing authority. There is no more autocracy about that than there is about enforcing a proper respect for any other law that we pass.

While there is no one in the Dáil more anxious to see the local people associated with the working of the schools and education generally than I am, I believe that if the enforcing of this measure were entrusted to local authorities it would not be a success, and we might as well not pass it. The danger that would arise from Deputy Johnson's suggestion is, as has been mentioned by the Minister, that the Gárdaí would not have the same sense of responsibility as if they were entrusted entirely with its administration. Whatever the theory on the subject might be, from inquiries made all over the country from people who are in a position to speak — not entirely teachers, but others; even some members of school attendance committees—the general opinion I have got is that if it is to be a success in the rural areas, or as a matter of fact in all the areas, it must be enforced by the Gárdaí. I should like to see a local committee in connection with every school, to look after the school and the school-building, etc., but in a matter of this kind, where the keeping of a child at home must be regarded as something in the nature of an offence or breaking of the law, the proper authority to enforce it would be the Gárdaí.

In theory it sounds all right and proper that school attendance work should be overlooked by a school attendance committee, but having sat on a committee in my own county from the time the Act came into force, I long ago came to the conclusion that it did not work as satisfactorily as it ought to have done. In my time on the committee the general feeling was that the Act was not enforced satisfactorily, and that a change was required. As things are, I think no other body of men can enforce the Act better than the Gárdaí, although it is not an ideal state of things. For instance, if they meet children picking blackberries along the road at eleven o'clock in the morning they can inquire why they are not at school. A member of a school attendance committee does not consider it part of his duty to interfere with people outside the meetings of the committee. It is not his business to go round and hunt up children. It is the business of the Gárda Síochána to do these things, and the people would not, I think, resent it in the same way as they would a private person coming into their house and making inquiries. As things are, I think there is no better plan for scattered districts than that embodied in this Bill, and I hope it will be carried out. My opinion is that it will work quite satisfactorily. I know that a great many clergymen are of that opinion.

Why should not the people be entrusted with the enforcement of a law which mostly concerns themselves? We are the most conscientious people on the face of the earth, and we have the greatest civic spirit. Why should not that civic spirit be encouraged? I do not object to the Gárdaí enforcing this measure.

Are they not our servants?

I think there should be a committee having control in each school area.

Perhaps the Minister will explain what special reasons he has for retaining school attendance committees in the places set out in the schedule. If committees can enforce the law in places like Pembroke, Blackrock and Rathmines, why could not they enforce it in other urban areas? It seems to me peculiar that school attendance committees appointed by public bodies that have been dissolved, because it was alleged they were unable to do their business efficiently, are to be retained, while committees appointed by bodies which it is acknowledged have been doing their business efficiently are to be abolished. I should like the Minister to explain that.

Deputies may remember that it was suggested during the early stages of the discussion of the Bill that the Gárdaí would not be able to take up these duties, and that it would be necessary to appoint school attendance committees. Undoubtedly, a number of these committees have worked well. A number of the committees that we are keeping on worked well, and that is a consideration. But there was another consideration, and perhaps that is what Deputy Morrissey is anxious to get at, the Gárdaí could not undertake the working of this Bill in certain districts. In the districts actually scheduled, the Gárdaí have definitely stated that they are not in a position to take over the administration of this Bill. I do not want it to be taken as in any way a slur on the actual committee who are continuing to do this work. In most cases, it is not so. There is one particular case scheduled, and possibly, afterwards, I will have to introduce an amendment to deal with that case. I do not know whether it is properly met in the Bill. One of the places scheduled is Limerick. From Deputy Morrissey's point of view, it is one of the strongest cases he could put forward. We have no anxiety at all to set up a school committee there. A school committee does not exist there at present. We would prefer if possible that the Bill should be administered by the Gárdaí, but, unfortunately, at the moment we have to schedule Limerick. I am not quite sure if we have power under the Bill to appoint a supervisor straight away. I am afraid what we have got to do is to dissolve the committee and appoint a supervisor. How we can dissolve a committee that does not exist, in order to appoint a supervisor, may present some legal difficulty. It is not denied at all that some of the committees we propose to dissolve have been excellent committees. Our idea would be to have this Bill administered all over the country by the Gárdaí, and, where that is possible, we have provided for it.

I have been compelled, by the evidence of the need, to agree to the general proposition that the Gárdaí as a body will have the enforcing of the Bill, as local committees have not been rigorous enough, and there does not exist a civic spirit, the spirit of responsibility that Deputy McBride urged in connection with such a matter as school attendance. As a matter of fact. I think it was almost generally accepted that it was not correct to say that civic spirit was excessive in this country. I think unfortunately, the contrary is the truth, but I believe we are moving towards a better state of things in that respect. I am bound to take into account the fact that the Gárdaí, as a body, are organised from a centre, and that the individual officer is responsible only to a Commissioner and to the Minister for Justice, and that no local influence is allowed to operate in respect to the administration of the law. That is the theory. In respect to school attendance, the position ought to be, and, perhaps, some day will be, different: that local interests, local spirit, and local knowledge should have some say in the matter of how the law should be administered, and that it should not be all in response to pressure from Dublin.

That is why I feel that we should, at some time, aim at the ideal of a local enforcing authority, and some day a local police force, responsible to local public opinion for the enforcement of the law, and particularly in the keeping of order rather than in the correction of criminals. I think there ought to be, and I hope there will be, even in respect to the Gárdaí, the view that their business is the maintenance of order and not merely the correction or arrest of criminals. Unfortunately, in the public mind at the present time, a policeman is merely a person who has to deal with criminals. I think that is an entirely wrong view, and I hope that the contact between the Gárdaí, the children, and the people in regard to a matter of this kind will gradually lead to a different appreciation of the functions of the Gárda Síochána. I feel that that state of things would be accelerated if we could in some way— frankly I am unable to propose any definite scheme—associate a local committee or local opinion with the carrying out of this law, and not let it be thought that it is something done merely at the instigation of the Department of Justice or the Police Commissioner, and so going against the wishes of the local people. As I say, I am not able to propose any practical alternative, but I think it desirable that that view should be expressed, that some local body responsible to the people should be associated with the Gárdaí in the enforcement of the Bill.

Question—"That Section 8 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Section 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 10.
(1) Each of the county boroughs and urban districts mentioned in the Schedule to this Act shall be a school attendance area, but the council of any of the said county boroughs and urban districts may at any time, subject to the approval of the Minister, divide such borough or district into two or more school attendance areas.
(2) In every school attendance area in the said county boroughs and urban districts there shall be a school attendance committee consisting of either six, or eight, or ten members as the council of the county borough or urban district in which the area is situate shall determine.
(3) Subject to the provisions of this section, the members of every such school attendance committee as aforesaid shall be appointed as to one-half thereof by the council of the county borough or urban district in which the school attendance area is situate and as to the other half thereof by the Minister, and every member of any such committee (other than a member appointed to fill a casual vacancy) shall hold office for three years from the date of his appointment.
(4) If and so far as such persons are available, not less than one-half of the members of every such school attendance committee shall be managers or patrons of schools in the school attendance area, and in the case of a school attendance committee of a school attendance area in which a Juvenile Advisory Committee established by or under the control of the Minister for Industry and Commerce exists, at least one member of such Juvenile Advisory Committee shall be a member of such school attendance committee.
(5) The first school attendance committee in each of the said school attendance areas shall consist of the persons who immediately before the commencement of this Act were members of the school attendance committee appointed under the Irish Education Act, 1892, for that area and such persons shall hold office as members of the first-mentioned committee for the period for which they would respectively have held office as members of the second-mentioned committee under the said Act if this Act had not been passed.
(6) The Minister, after consultation with the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, may by order prescribe the times and mode of appointment of members of school attendance committees by the councils of the said county boroughs and urban districts and by the Minister respectively, the time and mode of filling casual vacancies in such committees and the period of office of persons appointed to fill such vacancies, and the times of meeting, quorum, conduct of business, and keeping and audit of accounts of such committees.
(7) An officer of the Minister duly authorised in that behalf by the Minister shall be entitled to be present at any meeting of a school attendance committee and to address such committee, but not to vote, on any matter under consideration by the committee at such meeting.

I ask the permission of the Committee to amend my amendment, No. 30, by inserting the words "and teachers" instead of "or principal teachers" after the word "managers." It will then read:

In sub-section (4), page 5, line 45, after the word "managers" to insert the words "and teachers."

Leave granted.

Mr. O'CONNELL

The object of the amendment is that teachers may be appointed members of school attendance committees in such areas as they operate. It is at present the practice to appoint teachers on these committees, and it is admitted that they are very useful members of them. Up to 1922, the attendance in Cork was not everything that it should be, and a move was made by a local body, as a result of which the committee was reconstituted and teachers got special representation. As a result of the teachers' efforts, the attendance at Cork is now, I believe, about the best in the country. I do not think there will be any objection, but if the matter is left as it is, it might be argued that it is open to the Department to appoint them. It has been put to me in this way: suppose the local authority appointed, as they have a right to do, one-half of the committee, and that on that half there was no teacher, then it would be necessary to appoint the other half entirely of managers or patrons of schools, so that no teacher could get representation unless he was appointed direct by the local authority. I do not know why patrons are put in. Patrons are a disappearing body, as far as I know. It is a term that was much used in the old days, when landlords were patrons of schools, but I do not know that it is necessary to take them into special consideration in this matter, and perhaps "managers and teachers" might meet the situation.

I rise to thank Deputy O'Connell for his information that I am a disappearing body. I wish that the process could be accelerated. Before the Minister accepts this amendment, there is one difficulty that he should consider. With the principle that a teacher should be eligible for membership of a school attendance committee, I am entirely in agreement, but this sub-section (4) is mandatory. Not less than half of a committee must be patrons, teachers or managers. Suppose the local body appoints the largest number on a committee that they can, because they want to have five members on it themselves, there would in some cases I know be only two managers available, and with them you would require to have three teachers, though there might be people whom the Minister would very much wish to appoint, because of high qualifications, educationally and otherwise. Then, if you add teachers to this section, it means that you must have on a committee of ten, if there are only a Protestant and a Catholic clergyman available, three teachers, regardless of the fact that the Minister may want to appoint other people. I suggest that the principle that Deputy O'Connell is pleading for is in the main admirable, but that it might be met in some other way than by this amendment.

With regard to that difficulty, you must remember that there are only four areas scheduled.

There are more, perhaps, to be scheduled.

The chances are, I think, that they will not be scheduled. In any case, they are extensive areas; they are areas surely where there will be more than two managers available. Possibly, the Deputy has in his mind some small committees like those we have at present.

I have in mind my own School Attendance Committee in Dalkey, of which I am a member, and which I am proposing to add to the Schedule. I think it would be an unworkable thing.

I am surprised to hear that there are only two managers available in Dalkey.

There are only two.

I would put the matter this way. I recognise the difficulty Deputy O'Connell was under in actually wording his amendment, because the Bill does not secure that there would be any teacher on the committee. It leaves it completely in the hands of the Minister. Apparently, the Deputy thought that the Minister would not be willing to diminish the number of managers. Supposing that I was willing to consider an amendment of this kind: that amongst the half appointed by the local body at least one must be a teacher, would that meet the Deputy's point? So far as the Minister is concerned, his hands may be tied very much at present by the action of a local body. They may appoint no manager or teacher, and if they were bound to appoint at least one teacher—they may appoint more—I think it would go far to meet the Deputy's point of view.

Yes, but from another point of view I do not like that interference with the right of the local authority. It might be asked: Why not say that they should appoint at least one manager?

That would be very undue interference. Deputy O'Connell is introducing a new element into the matter. In these areas, where a school attendance committee is functioning, it is provided that the first school attendance committee shall be continued. That is natural enough. The same kind of committee will continue to operate as long as committees of this kind are in existence, and I think that if there is a question of imposing restrictions of this kind on the local authority, the more natural way would be when you are introducing the new element.

I am not inclined for the moment to accept this suggestion. I think it would be better met in the way I have pointed out. If the local authority put on a teacher, it would meet the position all right, but I would not like to have something in the Bill to say that they must put one on. If they do put a teacher on, the Ministry would not, of course, need to make any nomination; it could nominate all managers. But suppose they put on no teacher, as may be the case, I think it ought to be open to the Ministry to put on one.

In another Bill that I had to deal with, it was argued very strongly that we should do the precise thing we are doing now. In the case of the drainage committees, it was pointed out that we should insist that at least one of the people appointed on a committee by the county council should be a payer of the drainage rate of the district, and if I might for the moment equate the teacher, owing to his particular connection with education, with the man who had to pay a drainage rate—because both are particularly interested in these matters—we have a precedent. The point with regard to the drainage committees was eloquently argued from, I think, all parts of the House, so that we are not doing anything very revolutionary in what I am suggesting.

I do not think that the case is one of revolution. I think it is a case of whether the Minister is going to tie his hands in such a way as would prevent him appointing a teacher—in effect that is what it would mean— from the half that he would appoint.

Supposing the local authority did not appoint a teacher, as I read it, the Minister would not be empowered to appoint one. He has to select his half from managers and patrons of schools. If the local authority does not appoint a teacher or a manager, the Minister's appointees must be either managers or patrons.

In the amendment I am suggesting, of course the local authority would have to appoint at least one teacher. I am ready to consider this on the question of numbers, but that will depend on the size of the committee.

Will the Minister not accept it as mandatory that one of the persons he appoints should be a teacher?

Deputy O'Connell is not asking that.

When the question is raised, it is just as reasonable to suggest that the mandate should be that the Minister ought to appoint a teacher as that the local authority should appoint a teacher.

I would be quite willing to leave this matter over. I am sure the Minister realises the main object of my amendment is to see that teachers would be represented on these committees. I am quite willing not to press the amendment now.

Amendment by leave withdrawn.
Question—"That Section 10 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 11.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section every school attendance committee for a school attendance area in any of the county boroughs and urban districts mentioned in the Schedule to this Act may, subject to the approval of the council of the county borough or urban district and the sanction of the Minister, appoint and remove such officers as it thinks proper and subject to the sanction and approval aforesaid may fix and pay the remuneration of such officers.
(2) The Minister may at any time at his discretion remove any officer of any such school attendance committee as aforesaid.
(3) Every person who immediately before the commencement of this Act is an officer of a school attendance committee appointed under the Irish Education Act, 1892, for a school attendance area situate in a county borough or urban district mentioned in the Schedule to this Act shall immediately upon the commencement of this Act become and be an officer of the school attendance committee under this Act for that school attendance area on the same tenure, at the same remuneration, and with the same duties as immediately before the commencement of this Act but subject to the same obligations and the same liability to removal as if he had been appointed under this section by the last-mentioned committee.
(4) No person shall be appointed by a school attendance committee to be an officer of such committee unless he possesses such qualifications as shall be prescribed by the Minister for Education, after consultation with the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, as the necessary qualifications for such officer of such committee.

I do not know if the new sub-section that is proposed should not rather be a new section, but we can take it anyhow as it is.

I beg to move:—

Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) Subject to the approval of the council of the county borough or urban district and with the sanction of the Minister, every school attendance committee for a school attendance area shall have the same powers of granting superannuation allowances as are conferred on local authorities by the Local Government Act, 1925, with the substitution of the Minister for the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, and the amount of such superannuation shall be treated as expenses of the school attendance committee.

The intention of this amendment is to empower school attendance committees retained by the Bill to grant superannuation to their present officers who reach an old age or who have long service. As a member of a Dublin school attendance committee for a number of years, I have had an opportunity of noting the duties performed by these officers, and I believe they have given general satisfaction. They performed the same duties that are performed by other public officers and servants. They work the same hours. It may be argued that they have accepted their positions knowing that they were not pensionable, but you must consider that it is only within the past few years that an improvement has been made in regard to conditions of service under public authorities, and that while every other servant in public institutions has been advanced, school attendance officers have been the sole exception. I might point out that in the P.R. Act of 1919 and the Local Government Act of 1924 provision was made for a pension allowance to all employees, with the sole exception of the school attendance officers. There are, I understand, about 31 of those officers at the moment, that is, those who will come within the scope of the Bill. Twenty-four of those officers are in the City of Dublin, so that it cannot be argued, I think, that the charges that would come under this heading for superannuation would be very heavy. I trust the Minister will favourably consider the inclusion of this amendment. If there are any words necessary in the amendment that will make it clearer they can be inserted, but I trust, at any rate, he will accept the principle of the amendment.

I would like to say a word in support of the general proposition advanced by Deputy Doyle. It will be remembered that on the occasion of the passing of the Local Government Act an amendment was moved to have this provision included. There were not any arguments, as far as I remember, put up by anybody on the Government Benches to justify the non-inclusion of these officers, except this, that as they were not already pensionable they should not be included in that particular Act. The Minister at the time said, I think, that it was not his intention to make any people pensionable who are not entitled to pensions already. That was the only argument put up against it. There was no attempt made to argue the case against their inclusion, on its merits. I think it is an anomaly that these thirty odd public servants should be left out of the scope of a general pensions scheme applicable to local public servants. There is no reason why they should. They are whole-time officers, discharging a very onerous and important duty, and doing it satisfactorily. The vast majority of them are in the City of Dublin, and, as Deputy Doyle points out, the burden on the rates of the country to provide pensions for the remaining eight or nine will not be very heavy. I do hope that the Minister will see his way to accept this amendment, and see to have these whole-time officers included in the pension scheme.

I also beg to support Deputy Doyle's amendment. As Deputy O'Connell has pointed out, it is really an anomaly to have such a useful body as these officers not entitled to pensions. I would point out to the Minister that if he wants this Act administered successfully he will do something to get them pensions. At present they are not entitled to one penny pension, and if things remain as they are no school attendance committee would really think of dismissing them, even supposing they were past their work, and that they were too old and decrepit to do the very active work required. They have to visit houses of the poor mostly. Of course, parents who have the interests of their children at heart would not require the attendance or supervision of these officers. I submit that if the Minister wants the Act administered successfully he will include these officers in the superannuation scheme and accept the amendment.

I want to support Deputy Doyle, and I do so as a convert. When this scheme was first put up to me, I was inclined to oppose it, because I did not approve of the principle of people who were appointed to certain posts on certain conditions, knowing these conditions, and knowing that the positions were not pensionable, trying to obtain pensions from them. At the same time, when I came to look a little more closely into the history of the question, I discovered that originally hardly any posts in the municipal employment were pensionable, but that gradually one class after another has acquired pension rights until only the school attendance officers are left unpensionable. People who joined on the same conditions as they did were granted pensions, and I see no valid grounds for making an exception in this case. I am told—I hope my information is correct—that posts of this character are pensionable in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If that is the case I do not know why the school attendance officers in the Saorstát should be placed at this disadvantage. The sum involved is small. The number of officers involved is small, and I do not think it would be too heavy a burden to place on the shoulders of the ratepayers. In particular, I would like to stress Mrs. O'Driscoll's argument as to efficiency. Any body employing a person who is not pensionable, is tempted to retain that officer as long as is possible, even when he is no longer able to do his work satisfactorily, because they do not want to throw them out on the street. The result will be, unless some provision is made in the way of pensions, that you will have school attendance officers not up to the work which they are supposed to be doing.

I am opposed to the amendment for a very important reason. These men took up their position at a certain time under certain conditions, and because their numbers now are small they are to get pensions. From all parts of the country, we hear complaints about the heavy burden imposed on taxpayers. We also hear complaints about the lack of a sense of civic duty. Then we are told that the Dáil should give a lead on these matters to public bodies against whom the ratepayers are justly crying out. Those who accepted these positions under certain conditions knew at the time that they had no pensionable rights. No matter with what public body we are connected, we find these people and their friends coming along and trying to add to the everlasting and increasing burden on the ratepayers. Why should these officers, knowing that they have no pensionable rights, now come along and try to get in by the back-door? I am opposed to the general principle of this amendment. If you do a thing, do it because it is right, and, if it is not right, do not do it. Why should these people get pensions when there is neither right nor justice in their claim? If the Minister is going to consider the amendment, I think he should take into account what duty has been done by these officers, and in cases where officers should have been dismissed, because they did not do their duty and did not earn their salary, I think it would be unfair to give them pensions.

I agree with Deputy D'Alton in this matter. We are continually hearing from all parts of the country complaints about the increased burden that is being placed on ratepayers. Probably the heaviest handicap from which this country is suffering is the burden of pensions of one kind or another, which has unfortunately been placed upon it, but which cannot, to a great extent, be helped now. That is no reason why we should add to that burden. When a similar proposal was before the Dáil in connection with the Local Government Bill, it was defeated by 42 to 16 votes. Some Deputies seem to have changed their minds since then, but I see no reason why they should. These committees are not committees of local authorities and I do not see why the burden should be placed on the backs of the ratepayers. The Ministry of Finance is usually a stone-wall around which it is difficult to get, and people think that it is easier to achieve their object by attacking the funds of the local authorities. The ratepayer is generally a very easy individual to deal with. He is something in the nature of a milch cow to which everybody thinks he can go when he wants to get something. The ratepayers' milch cow can, however, go dry the same as any other cow, and I think it is very near that stage now. This amendment proposes to make school attendance officers pensionable, and it is retrospective in its effect. That, as Deputy D'Alton pointed out, is unfair. When these officers took up their positions, they realised that they had no pensionable rights. That being the case, they are not now placed in any unfair position by not conceding that right to them. If they were appointed under conditions which would have given them pensionable rights, the terms of their appointment would have been much stricter. To a great extent, these were something in the nature of charitable appointments, given to widows and people of that kind who were almost at a pensionable age when appointed.

That is not correct.

It is true so far as Dublin is concerned.

Mr. BYRNE

It is not true in Dublin.

The Deputy should consult Senator Mrs. Wyse Power, who was a colleague of his in the Dublin Corporation. These people would also have had to pass an examination otherwise. In so far as the amendment is retrospective, I am very much opposed to it, and will vote against it.

I would like to ask your ruling, sir, as to whether this amendment is in order. This, in my opinion, is a motion of a private Deputy, which will impose a charge upon the State if it is carried. If that is so, are we in order in discussing it?

It is a motion to impose a charge on local rates.

Will it not fall partly on the State also?

No. I examined it from that point of view. It falls on the local rates in its entirely. The protection of which Deputy Heffernan speaks, is contained in Article 35 of the Constitution, but that excludes local rates.

I wish to oppose the amendment, and to support the Minister for Local Government and Deputy D'Alton for the reasons which they gave. It was stated here the other day that hard cases make bad law. That is the very thing which we have here. There are hard cases, and there are many school attendance officers with whom, individually, we may have great sympathy, but we are dealing with local funds, and as has already been pointed out, the condition of local finances is very poor, and the position of the ratepayers to meet the demands upon them is very weak. The total amount of expense involved in this amendment, if it is accepted, may be very small, but it is to the principle of the thing that I object. These men entered into a definite contract knowing perfectly well what the contract meant. If we continue—because we have already started—changing contracts for the benefit of one party to those contracts, there will be no end to the thing. Every class will come along, one wanting this and the other wanting that, and will use every means in their power to force Deputies and local bodies to improve their position either by superannuation or other means. An effort of this kind to retrench may be unpopular, and we may have to face a certain amount of odium from these people and their friends, but I think it is high time that the country put its foot down and decided that this cannot be carried further. We call upon local bodies to retrench and cut down their expenses, salaries, and pensions, and surely it looks very unreasonable for us to be asking them to do things of this kind when we in this assembly are doing exactly the opposite. I ask the Minister not to be moved by these appeals to his goodness of heart, and to steel himself against these demands.

I support the amendment, and trust it will be accepted. Deputy D'Alton spoke about economy. We could all agree with him generally, but when we talk about economy we ought to be consistent, and ought not lay down the principle that all economies must be made at the expense of one section of the community. I would like to refer to an instance recently where the principle of giving pensions was endorsed by the Dáil with much less justification than is contained in this proposal. A short time ago we had a Bill introduced here to give pensions to two men who had service under the old courts for something less than a year, and who, I presume, took office without any hope of a pension. I think it was argued that they were promised permanent positions. It was, however, thought desirable to introduce a Bill to provide them with pensions.

I suggest that the case of school attendance officers is much more deserving. I was interested to hear the Minister for Local Government speak about the crushing burdens on the people. I suggest to the Minister that he has foisted on the country a system of workhouses and poor law reform that has added to the burden the people have to bear. It is, so far as the reform of poor law is concerned, only penalising them further. He has advocated very desirable sentiments, but his Department has not carried out economy in regard to the services he is responsible for; he has carefully carried out that policy where other interests are concerned. Many of those men have given long and useful service, and I suggest that opposition to this amendment is entirely inconsistent.

I must thank Deputy Cooper for one word. The word "convert" is much nicer than the word "inconsistent." I am in the same position as Deputy Cooper, and that is the reason I have been pleased to get that particular word. The principal reason it appeals to me in this position is a reason that has been mentioned by Deputy Mrs. Collins-O'Driscoll and Deputy Cooper. Although I have no great objection to the amendment as it stands, I do not think the exclusion of the Minister for Local Government, in a matter of this kind, is possible. The claim was made that this is a local body. The claim was made against that that it was not a local body but a hybrid body, and, therefore, a distinction should be made between these officials and other officials, who were being pensioned in the case of the last Bill.

So far as school attendance officers are concerned, this Bill affects them in two ways. School attendance officers in cities are going to be abolished. The officers will be removed. We are not discussing them; we are only discussing pensions for the school attendance officers of the committees in the scheduled areas. It refers then only to Dublin and its surroundings, to the city of Cork, to Waterford and Limerick. The Deputies will remember that the essence of this was argued when the Local Government Bill was before the House, and the House, in a very marked manner, turned down this proposal.

It was not a free vote.

Apart from any free vote, both this House and the Seanad, which is very free in what it does, turned down this proposal. The reason they turned it down was because some Deputy said it was not the place to discuss a matter of this kind, and that the best place we could discuss it would be in the Compulsory School Attendance Bill. The main reason was that this Bill involved a burden on the rates and that it was not the time to put a burden on the rates. I want to make clear what the attitude was and what were the arguments against the proposal.

Now, so far as the matter of justice is concerned, it has been argued that these school attendance officers entered into a contract, and, therefore, should be bound by the strict letter of that contract. That is one type of justice, but there is another type of justice. When you are pensioning those who are doing a similar class of work to whole-time officials, you pension most of them, and you, so to speak, take out a certain class. That offends against another principle of justice. So much from the point of view of mere justice.

What especially appeals to me is the argument put forward by Deputy Mrs. O'Driscoll. There are a number of those men. You are keeping them on and expecting them to do work, and you are hoping that more strenuous work will be done. Are you likely to get effective work out of men, over fifty—approaching sixty and sixty-five—in enforcing this particular Act if they have nothing to look forward to after their term? That will be met in one of two ways. Either those officers will have to try to find other means to supplement what they are getting, to the neglect of their duty under this Act, or else they will be kept on under the school attendance committee beyond the time when they are fit for work. That is the danger of the present position here. They will be much more easily dismissed if they are pensionable. A number of those have rendered long years of service. Some of them have twenty-six years' service, and they are still far from a pensionable age.

There are very few of these men over fifty-five, and most of them have already rendered long service. It cannot, therefore, be alleged that at the time of their appointment they were beyond the age of service. The service they have rendered does not suggest anything of the kind. In Dublin, and I think still more in Cork, they have done a great deal in order to render a rather ineffective Act, to some extent, effective. Their labours resulted in an increased attendance at the schools in Dublin and in Cork, and the work they have to do is not pleasant work. They have to start their work at 10 o'clock in the morning. They visit the schools and also the parents whose children are reported as being away from school, and in Dublin or in Cork that is not pleasant work. Reference has been made to the age of these men. One of them is possibly between fifty-five and sixty years. He has had long service, and when he was appointed he had to serve in an area in Dublin for which it would not be advisable to choose a very young man. That is a consideration that ought to be taken into account. What principally appeals to me is the danger that if you do not in this particular case make the men pensionable you will not get effective work out of them as far as this Act is concerned. That is the principal reason why I am proposing that the House itself should decide on this matter as it likes. Again, it is another free vote, as it is called. If Deputies think that there is a case for reversing the decision that the House took some time ago, let them do so, having heard the arguments. As to whether this should be retrospective, that undoubtedly is the intention of the mover: that if the House decides to pension them their past service should be taken into account. I understand that where non-pensionable officers are being made pensionable, and the thing occurs very frequently, the rule is that where the service is continuous— I mean the same type of service—in that case I think the rule is—I am speaking now under correction—that the past service counts.

Now, as regards the future, what the Minister for Local Government has said is quite true. If these men are to be made pensionable, then they will have to undergo the same tests both as regards the health qualifications—I am speaking now of future appointments— as any other pensionable officer has to undergo. Therefore, even if the principle of this amendment is accepted, it can be easily seen that we will have to redraft the amendment and consider it carefully. If the House in its wisdom decides to vote for this amendment it does not necessarily follow that this is the precise form that the amendment will ultimately take.

I am afraid I will have to take a view point altogether different to that expressed by the Minister. I take exception also to some of the statements made by him, and to some of the things implied in his statements. I think the Minister hinted that people are not fit for work in the public service at 50 or 55 years of age, and that they ought to be pensioned at that age. I think he mentioned that people were unfit for duty at the age of 50 or 55.

What is the meaning of the Minister's words then?

The statement was made that when these men were appointed they were already, shall I put it so, old crocks. I then pointed out that very few of these men, even at the present time, have reached the age of 55 after having given several years' service. I was arguing from that, and it seemed to follow that at the time they were appointed they were not old crocks.

What the Minister said in his previous statement was that a man is not fit for this particular duty at 50 or 55 years of age.

The Minister also said by implication that it is impossible to expect service from any man or woman except a pension was in the offing.

I never said that.

Then the Minister told us that we cannot expect proper attention in the discharge of their duty unless there is a pension attached. If the Minister did not say that what did he say?

What I said was that I think you will get more effective service if a man is not so anxious about his future than if he is, if I may put it that way.

There are a great many people in this country who are not paid a salary and who have no prospect of getting a pension who give better service to the State than any public official, and these are the people who have to pay. The policy here, and I think here more than anywhere else, is to divide the people of this country into two communities: the people who receive a salary and pension, and those who pay. It would seem as if the general tendency is to array these people in two camps—to put those who draw salaries or pensions from public or semi-public bodies in one class, and to put the people who have to find the money in another. If it is to be a general all-round system to remunerate every citizen in the State for faithful public service, that is another matter, and we will discuss that on its merits. What I say is, that the people in the country who are not receiving a salary and who have no public appointments, give as faithful service and are as much entitled to a pension as those who are drawing salaries and pensions. If we were to face the position and tell the actual truth and what we believe, we would have no hesitation in saying that those who get no pension or salary give the best public service. I would like to know how the country could carry on if it were not for the people who are drawing no salaries or pensions—the people who are trying to eke out an existence without any pension whatever.

A case has been made for a pension for every class in the community other than the ordinary weekly employee engaged by public bodies. The case for pensions for the ordinary weekly wage earning employee under corporations and urban councils, has been strenuously opposed. A man in receipt of a weekly wage has not yet been taken into this pension category, but I believe he is the only one omitted. When appointments are being made and men enter into them—in fact they canvass very hard to get them and use a lot of influence and sometimes a little money to get them—an attempt is at once made to have a pension attached to them. We all know that is the custom. As soon as they get appointed to a position their friends begin to pull the strings, and as soon as the person is nicely placed in a position an attempt is made to add something else to the appointment, so as to make it carry a pension. We who are dealing with public money ought to have some advertence to the capacity of the public to pay, but there is no such advertence at all. I hold that one section of the community deserves as much consideration as the other. If you are prepared to adopt the principle that every citizen in the State must get a pension for his public services, I am prepared to discuss that from that point of view, but I am not prepared to admit it here on this section.

I would like to know whether the effect of this amendment would be to invest the school attendance committees with the power to grant pensions without reference to the local council, which is the rating authority, and the only authority legally empowered to grant pensions. That is a point, I think, that requires to be cleared up. It seems to me, reading the amendment as it stands, that the power of granting pensions would belong entirely to the school attendance committee without any reference whatever to the rating authority. That, I think, needs to be cleared up.

I think the amendment as it stands bears the implication suggested by Deputy MacNeill, but I made it clear that if the principle of the amendment was carried, the whole thing would have to be redrafted. I think it would be most objectionable that any of the local authorities or local corporations who have school attendance committees, and who provide the money should be deprived of the right of granting the pensions in favour of the committees. I think it would be most objectionable. I think it would be quite sufficient if the local authority was given the power to grant the pension. If the House rejects the amendment, well, of course, that puts an end to it, but if the House accepts it, then, I take it, it will be the general wish of the House that I should provide another amendment, at a later stage of the Bill, embodying the principle of this amendment. I think it would be possible to do that.

Yes, it would.

It would be open to us to move to delete this amendment and to insert something else.

Yes, if this sub-section is inserted a motion would be in order, at the next stage, to delete it and to insert any other words thought more fitting.

Deputy Gorey talks about those who receive and those who pay. But who are going to receive under this amendment and who are going to pay? One person in the city of Cork.

We have heard all that kind of thing before.

I am going on with my argument. I listened to Deputy Gorey, and I hope he will allow me to proceed. One person in the city of Cork will receive. The ratepayers of Cork will have to pay, and no objection is taken from the city of Cork. Two people in Rathmines will receive under this amendment, and I support this amendment. The remaining twenty-two or twenty-three people who will receive come from the city of Dublin. This amendment is proposed by a representative of the city of Dublin, and it is supported by another representative of the city of Dublin, and it is not opposed by any representative from the city of Dublin. Their constituents can reckon with them if they disapprove of their action. Not one penny of this money will be paid by the people of Carlow or of Kilkenny or of Tipperary, yet we are confronted with a Tipperary veto to tell the people of Dublin and the representatives of the city of Dublin that they do not know the interests of their own constituents. Is not that a preposterous position? I am not challenging the right of any Deputy from Carlow, Kilkenny or Tipperary to take up whatever action he likes——

Tipperary is affected by this because two people have written to me claiming pensions after 20 years' service there.

No person serving as a school attendance officer in Tipperary can get a pension under this amendment. The rights of no ratepayer in Tipperary will be affected to the extent of one single penny under this amendment, unless they are also ratepayers in Dublin.

There is an amendment down to the Schedule affecting the town of Clonmel, which is in Tipperary, so that if this amendment was accepted the attendance officers under those schools committees would be pensionable. That is how I read it, and, therefore, Tipperary is affected under this amendment.

Then in that case Deputy Heffernan and Deputy D'Alton, in whose names this amendment stands, will, I presume, withdraw their amendment. I do not challenge the right of any Deputy to express his opinion in the Dáil.

That argument is not fair. There is no connection between the amendment that we put down and this amendment for having school attendance officers pensioned. The effect of our amendments would not imply that these officers should be pensioned.

Perhaps I overlooked the effect of the two amendments in the names of Deputy Heffernan and Deputy D'Alton, but we shall not reach them for a long time. In the meantime, they will have time to consider whether they might not put down a further amendment providing that officers under such committees shall not be pensionable. Evidently the reason we get these arguments from the Farmers' Party and Deputy D'Alton and the Minister for Local Government is, that on a question of principle they object to people not in pensionable appointment receiving pensions. Then why do not the Farmers' Party bring in a Bill dealing with this matter? Every other party in the House has brought in Bills, but the Farmers' Party never brought in a Bill. Let them bring in a Bill forbidding all people appointed to non-pensionable positions receiving pensions. Perhaps the Minister for Local Government would draft it for them. He is in favour of that principle, but I think if such a Bill were brought in it should be applied all round. Do not let us single out the 25 or 26 people in Dublin who happen to be in the peculiar position of school attendance officers.

If the Minister for Local Government is going to oblige the farmers in that, perhaps he would add some clauses to the Bill making it a penal offence to alter the terms of any contract, whether agricultural tenancy contract or other, that has ever been entered into.

I think this question of salaries and pensions has been put in an altogether false light. Salaries which carry pensions are always paid at a lower rate. When a man is offered a position with a pension the pension is always in the nature of deferred pay. If a man were offered a salary without a pension for the same position the salary would be much larger, and one of the effects of attaching a pension to a salary is to make the position more attractive. One would imagine from what has been said that pensionable officials and civil servants and others who receive pensions pay no taxes at all. It would be very interesting to get a return showing the taxes, both income tax and municipal taxes, paid by such persons. I think the amount of it would astonish many critics. Even farmers, and I am one of them myself, benefit from the work of those overtaxed officials. As a member for Dublin, I support this amendment because I believe the citizens of Dublin are essentially a just people above everything else.

I am encouraged by Deputy Cooper's reference to Dublin Deputies to get up and occupy the time of the House for a few minutes on this question. I observe that in the course of the debate there has been a constant reference to the men concerned in this matter. I would like to remind the House that there are some women school inspectors, too, who are also concerned, and who I may say do very excellent work, and I hope that under this amendment their position, equally with that of the men, will be advanced. I claim to speak with some experience on this matter for the reason that I was privileged to be President of the Children's Court in the City of Dublin for a period of three years. During that time I came in contact with practically every school attendance officer, man and woman. They attended in the court over which I presided for four or five hours on a Monday to give evidence in the case of children who were reported to be remaining away from school, as well as in connection with children who were engaged in street trading before they had reached the age of 14. Their job was not by any means a sinecure. They had very onerous duties to discharge, and from my experience of them I must say that they carried out their duties in a very efficient way. It always seemed to me that it would encourage these school attendance officers to put their heart into their work if they were made pensionable. It was not pleasant for them to contemplate that, after giving long years of service in their office, when they became infirm they would have no pension. If the Minister for Local Government and Public Health insists on pensions for officials in the various departments under his control, I do not think it is fair to single out a number of servants, such as those covered by this amendment, and treat them in a different manner.

It seems to be argued here that we are giving pensions. I want to make it quite clear that we are giving powers to local authorities, or commissioners as the case may be, to give pensions. Although I have no desire to shorten the discussion, I might mention that this matter was fully discussed before. I do not know whether the House desires to finish the Committee Stage of this Bill to-day or not.

I want to refer to a statement made by Deputy Cooper. Deputy Cooper is usually very accurate in his statements, but he was extraordinarily inaccurate to-day in several statements he made. I pointed out, by interjection, that he was inaccurate in the statement that the Farmers' Party has not introduced any Bills. If Deputy Cooper took the trouble to ascertain the facts he would find that there is a Bill under consideration in the Seanad, introduced by the Farmers' Party.

I apologise. I should have said in the Dáil.

Another Bill will be introduced by the Farmers' Party soon. I think Deputy Cooper should withdraw his statement. There was one argument put forward by the Minister which I consider is scarcely fair. He suggested that already the Dáil has given pension rights to certain officials, and he indicated that, having given such rights, a precedent is established for the giving of further pensions. My recollection of what was done by the Dáil is that we gave no new rights; we merely continued rights that were already in existence; we simply continued rights which came down to us from the British Parliament. That is my information as to what we did in regard to pension rights. I contend that we are not bound to any precedent established already by the Dáil.

One aspect of this question has not been touched upon. If this amendment is carried it will produce great dissatisfaction all over parts of the country where officers have been dismissed and committees broken up. These officers, I believe, are to get one year's salary. In many cases the officers in the non-scheduled areas have quite as long a service as some of the Dublin officials who have been alluded to. If this proposal is carried in regard to Dublin, I believe it will be an incentive to other officers throughout the country to put up a case for pensions. That is an aspect of the question that has not been touched upon, and I submit it is a very serious aspect.

I am sure the Farmers' Party as a whole could not support such a proposition. If the amendment is carried, the officers throughout the non-scheduled areas who will lose their situations will feel they have just as good a right to put up a fight for pensions as the people to whom reference has been made.

On a point of explanation. There is no comparison between the two cases. The Dublin officers are whole-time officers. Their duties commence at 10 o'clock in the morning and end at 5 o'clock in the evening. These hours apply from Monday to Friday On Saturdays they work from 10 o'clock in the morning until 1 o'clock in the afternoon. They are in a different position from the officers Deputy Doyle refers to—the officers working in the country districts. The issue was confounded; even the Minister for Local Government and Public Health was not quite clear on the matter. I desire, also, to correct a statement that the Minister made. I was here when the Local Government Act was being discussed. The matter was not pressed to a division. When the Minister says that the proposal was defeated by 42 votes to 10, I do not know what he could be thinking of.

I would like to inform the Deputy that I have actually seen the figures.

There was a proposal put forward by Deputy Doyle on it, but it was not pressed to a division. Deputy Doyle and other Deputies will, I am sure, bear me out in that.

I do not care whether they are whole-time officers or otherwise. Their offices are non-pensionable. If you pension them now it will be an incentive to other officers in the country to demand pension rights.

This Bill will have the effect of getting rid of all the other officers; they will not exist.

I am quite aware of that. It is a greater hardship. The officers in Dublin will be retained and will take their salaries while the other officers will have to go out of office, lose their salaries and have no pension rights.

It has been stated that the attitude of the Farmers' Party to this amendment is based on principle. That is perfectly correct. It is based on principle, on several aspects of a very big principle. First and foremost, it is based on the right of this House to pass this section imposing on the ratepayers a burden. A third party intervenes.

Perhaps it would be as well to get this matter quite clear. This section does not impose a burden upon the ratepayer or taxpayer. It proposes to give a right to a local authority to grant a pension if that local authority thinks fit to do so.

It is put in with a definite object, and that object is that the burden will be imposed.

A third party does not come in.

We cannot impose the burden.

We are leaving the road open to the imposition of this burden. Dublin Deputies are entirely in favour of the Bill, but there is one aspect of it that they should consider. We have to consider the actual terms under which those men entered into employment. Where is the provision indicating that they would be pensionable? As far as we are aware, it is non-existent. As Deputy Gorey and other Deputies pointed out, when those appointments were vacant there was great canvassing and great intrigue. At that stage there was no suggestion of making the office pensionable. Men have no cause for complaint if they are held strictly by the terms of their agreement.

It has been stated that our policy is "to hell with contracts." I have seen that as a caption in a periodical representing the views of those functioning under the Government in the capacity of paid servants. In connection with school attendance officers, where can the cry be raised? Where does the validity of the cry "to hell with contracts" arise? The school attendance officers never contracted that their offices would be pensionable. It is not a just complaint in their case to say that the Farmers' Party policy is "to hell with contracts," because no contracts for pensions ever existed. We are resolved that as far as possible pension rights will not exist.

It has been stated also, by way of argument, that civil servants have to pay a great deal in income tax. Have they not earned—obtained—this money from the public?

I think the Deputy said "earned"; he should not have changed the word. I am objecting to the change.

Am I to assume that the Minister is of opinion that they do not earn their salaries?

We have to oppose this thing on the grounds of the capacity of the people to pay. Through the length and breadth of the country the people are suffering from distress. The hardships they have to undergo to make ends meet are appalling. And as far as we on this side are concerned, we cannot directly or indirectly give any countenance to anything that will impose any fresh burdens on them. Every one of us in the Dáil would respect the application of that principle to his own constituency. Then, that being the case, we cannot differentiate in the case of other constituencies; and, speaking in a legislative capacity, none of us should deviate from these principles which we support in the case of our own constituencies. The ratepayers of Dublin may not have protested against this amendment, but we cannot, on principle, permit the extension of that principle of imposing fresh burdens, which may be applied to our own cases to-morrow. I must vote against the amendment.

I would not have risen to speak again—as I am anxious to get this settled now—but for the persistence on the part of the Farmer Deputies and others in saying that because a person occupies a certain position at a certain salary that that person is for all time strictly bound to continue under those conditions. I object to that principle altogether. There is no sanctity about it so far as I know. If it were always acted on, where would the farmers of Ireland be to-day? They would be where they were—under the landlords. If Deputy Connor Hogan's principle were carried out and strictly adhered to, the farmers of Ireland, bound by a contract, would have to accept that, and they would not be permitted to seek for any extension of their rights. To me that seems to be the logical conclusion of Deputy Connor Hogan's arguments.

I am not blaming those people for seeking an extension of their rights.

But the Deputy is trying to impose this principle on them, and I say, therefore, that he is following in the footsteps of the Irish landlords and the Tory Party of England, who contended that the Irish tenants had no right to seek their rights. Now, if that were accepted, there would be no progress on the part of any section or any body of men. If the position were taken up that because a man accepts a contract or accepts certain conditions, that he is not to look for any improvement of his position later on, them there would be no progress at all. Deputy Connor Hogan says that his main reason for opposing the amendment is, because it is imposing a burden on the people, and he says that it is because of the incapacity of the people to pay that he is opposing this. I do not know that that argument is put up seriously in the case of these particular officers. I do not think the burden on the ratepayers of Dublin caused by paying a pension to half a dozen of these officers would be such a terrible one for the people to bear. I believe that a half a dozen would be the very most who would be drawing this pension at any time. In any case, I would prefer to accept the evidence of the representatives of the people of Dublin on this matter than any statement of Deputy Connor Hogan. On the principle of getting effective service from these men, I am in favour of the amendment. And I hold that the country and the ratepayers will get better service from these officers if these officers know that when they come to the end of their term, and are unable to do their work, they will have something to sustain them in their old age. If they know that there is such provision to be made for them, they will put their heart into their work and do better work. It is for that reason I am supporting the amendment.

Before the Minister replies, I wish to answer the argument advanced by Deputy O'Connell just now. He states that those officers have the same rights that other local officers in this country had on taking up their appointments. The cases are not parallel at all. Deputy Hennessy stated that numbers of these officers took up positions because they were pensionable. Were these offices not pensionable, they would not have taken them up at all at the salaries attached to them, and it was because they were pensionable they took the rate of salary at the time. In the one case, there is the question of where people went in at a given salary, knowing that at any rate there would be a pension. I think these are not on all fours at all with the others. In the latter case, people took up a certain position knowing that there were no pension rights. Now, is it just to the men who took on a salary at a lower rate, knowing that there would be a pension, that others who accepted a salary at a higher rate, because it was not a pensionable office, should now be given pensionable rights?

I say if those officers who are affected by Deputy Peadar Doyle's amendment are not paid a proper salary for the work they are doing, then they should ask to be paid a proper salary, and in future they should be paid in proportion to the work done. I believe that is at the root of most of the evils in this country—that some men are paid a salary for work they do not do, and that others who do the work are not paid sufficiently. Now, if these officers are not sufficiently paid I say they should be paid and their salary should be increased. But I do not believe in this method of acquiring a certain position under certain conditions, and then, after a short time in office, getting people to hand in a notice of motion to have the salary increased. Unfortunately, the ratepayer has to pay for all this. It is not just, honest, nor straightforward that this should continue. If a person earns a certain salary, give that to him, but do not come on at a later date and say that this man ought to get a pension in addition.

Deputy D'Alton has very effectively destroyed his own argument. At present the local authority, without being given any new powers, may, with the sanction of the Minister, raise the salaries of those school attendance officers. Now, Deputy D'Alton says he is agreeable to that—he is agreeable that power should be given to the local authority, with the sanction of the Minister, to raise the salary of these officers. But he will not agree to give the local authority powers to add to their remuneration by another method, by the method of pension or deferred pay. One argument used—and I think it is a very sound one—is that giving these officers these rights will ensure their content and ensure better service by the fact that they can look forward to the time when, unable to carry on their work satisfactorily, they can retire. I am only dealing with that particular point. Deputy D'Alton enunciates the view that the salaries of these officers shall be increased if it is desirable to increase them. The local authority has power to do that with the sanction of the Minister. Well, that is all that is desired in this amendment—that they should have power to increase the amount by the method of pension, rather than by the method of yearly salaries. That is all that is sought for —that the local authority, with the sanction of the Minister, will have power to give this pension. Passing this amendment is not giving these officers pension rights. It is putting these officers in the same position in relation to the question of pensions as the other salaried servants of the local authority are in.

They have pension rights under the Act.

Who have?

The other officers of the local authority.

That is exactly what I say. The object of the amendment is to place those officers in the same position under the local authorities as that in which the other officers are.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided:—Tá, 32; Níl, 17.

  • Seoirse de Bhulbh.
  • Bryan R. Cooper.
  • John Daly.
  • Máighréad Ní Choileáin, Bean
  • Uí Dhrisceóil.
  • Séamus Eabhróid.
  • Patrick J. Egan.
  • David Hall.
  • Thomas Hennessy.
  • Séamus Mac Cosgair.
  • Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
  • Tomás Mac Eoin.
  • Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
  • Eoin Mac Néill.
  • Peadar O hAodha.
  • Mícheál O hAonghusa.
  • Ailfrid O Broin.
  • Criostóir O Broin.
  • Seán O Bruadair.
  • Tomás O Conaill.
  • Máirtín O Conalláin.
  • Aodh O Cúlacháin.
  • Liam O Daimhín.
  • Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
  • Séamus O Dóláin.
  • Eamon O Dubhghaill.
  • Peadar O Dubhghaill.
  • Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
  • Seán O Laidhin.
  • Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
  • Tadhg O Murchadha.
  • Seán O Súilleabháin.
  • Caoimhghín O hUigín.

Níl

  • Pádraig Baxter.
  • Thomas Bolger.
  • Séamus de Burca.
  • John Conlan.
  • Louis J. D'Alton.
  • John Hennigan.
  • Connor Hogan.
  • Patrick J. Mulvany.
  • John T. Nolan.
  • Parthalán O Conchubhair.
  • Seán O Duinnín.
  • Donnchadh O Guaire.
  • Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
  • Pádraig O hOgáin (Luimneach).
  • Máirtín O Rodaigh.
  • Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
  • Nicholas Wall.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies P.S. Doyle and T. O'Connell. Níl: Deputies Baxter and D'Alton.
Amendment declared carried.
Question—"That Section 11, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Sections 12 and 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 14.
(1) If and whenever the Minister is satisfied that a school attendance committee is not duly and effectually discharging its duties under this Act or has refused or wilfully neglected to comply with any provision of this Act or of the regulations made thereunder, the Minister may by order dissolve such committee and shall by such order either:—
(a) appoint a person (in this section called a supervisor) to discharge the duties of such committee, or
(b) with the consent of the Minister for Justice, declare that this Act shall apply to the school attendance area of such committee as if such area was not situate in a county borough or urban district mentioned in the Schedule to this Act, or
(c) make such other provision as he may think proper for the discharge of the duties of such committee.
(2) Whenever the Minister by an order under this section appoints a supervisor the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(a) the remuneration and tenure of office of the supervisor shall be fixed by the Minister;
(b) the Minister may at any time remove the supervisor and appoint another person to be supervisor in his place;
(c) all the moneys and assets, liabilities, officers, rights, powers, and duties of the dissolved committee shall by virtue of such order be transferred to and shall vest in, be attached to, or be discharged or performed by the supervisor;
(d) the expenses of the supervisor (including his own remuneration) shall be defrayed in like manner as the expenses of the dissolved committee are required by this Act to be defrayed;
(e) the Minister may by order at any time remove the supervisor and either order the appointment under this Act of a new school attendance committee for the school attendance area of such supervisor and restore to such committee the moneys and other assets, liabilities, officers, rights, powers, and duties of the supervisor, or, with the consent of the Minister for Justice, declare that this Act shall apply to such school attendance area as if it was not situate in a county borough or urban district mentioned in the Schedule to this Act.
(3) Whenever the Minister makes an order under this section declaring that this Act shall apply to a school attendance area as if such area was not situate in a county borough or urban district mentioned in the Schedule to this Act the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(a) this Act shall apply to such area in accordance with such declaration;
(b) the moneys and assets and the liabilities of the dissolved committee or removed supervisor (as the case may be) shall by virtue of such order be transferred to and vested in or discharged by the council by whom the expenses of such committee or supervisor were defrayed under this Act;
(c) the officers of the dissolved committee or dissolved supervisor shall be deemed to have been removed by virtue of such order from office and shall be paid by the council to whom the moneys of such committee or supervisor are transferred compensation in accordance with a scale to be fixed by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health after consultation with the Minister for Education but not exceeding in any case one year's salary at the rate of salary of which the officer was in receipt on the 1st day of November, 1925.

On behalf of Deputy Corish, I move:—

In sub-section (1), page 7, lines 8 and 9, to delete the words "by order dissolve such committee and shall by such order either," and substitute the words—"either remove from office any or all of the members of the committee and require the council of the county borough or urban district by whom such members were appointed to appoint other persons to be members in their stead or, if the persons so removed from office were appointed by the Minister, himself appoint other persons to be members in their stead, or alternatively, the Minister may by order dissolve such committee and by such order either."

I think it is desirable to specify that the Minister may have power to remove any or all of the members of a committee and to appoint other ones in their place. It is well that that should be specifically included even though sub-section (1) (c) says: "make such other provision as he may think proper for the discharge of the duties of such committee." That might be said to include this. I think it ought to be assumed that there are other methods of dealing with a committee which is not doing its work than by dissolving it, and that the method of appointing a new committee, or new members of a committee, or requiring the council to do such a thing, is a desirable one and should be indicated in the Bill.

I wish to support the amendment. The main reason why I support it is that I have an amendment down to delete sub-section (1) (c). I think the powers taken under that sub-section are too wide and too indefinite. It gives a free hand to the Minister to do anything he likes, and the rest of the section is worthless in the event of that sub-section being included. This amendment definitely lays down certain alternatives which may be resorted to by the Minister before he dissolves the committee, or takes the indefinite course which is open to him under this sub-section.

I have no particular objection to the amendment except that it seems to be unnecessary. I think I have the power under sub-section (1) (c), and I hope Deputy Heffernan will not be successful in taking away that particular power.

While strictly this amendment may be said to be unnecessary, there is a definite value in having a clause in the Bill that will indicate that the Legislature has in mind a specific method of dealing with such a matter in addition to these specified.

If the Deputy consents, I shall submit the amendment to the draftsman and bring it up on the next stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move:

To delete sub-section (1) (c).

I think the powers taken by this sub-section are extremely wide, because it gives a Minister power to do anything he likes in this particular matter. While I would be willing to give the Minister very wide powers, I should like to have those powers defined.

I wish Deputy Heffernan would provide us with the powers he proposes to entrust to us, because we do not know what the most suitable method of dealing with any particular case might be. Supposing you have two school attendance committees, it may be advisable to amalgamate them. There are a number of cases in which the circumstances may dictate other ways of dealing with the situation than the two or three we can definitely mention here. It is unreasonable, I think, to tie the hands of the Minister in this way.

Amendment put and negatived.

I move:

To add at the end of sub-section (2) the following paragraph:

(f) a supervisor appointed under this section shall not have any rights to pension or gratuity at the expiration of his term of office.

I would like to ask the Minister if there will be a pension or the possibility of a pension for these supervisors. If not, I do not see any use in arguing the question.

I want to point out to the Deputy that he does not mean what is stated in the amendment. He does not want to deprive me of the right of appointing a civil servant, who is a whole-time officer, as supervisor for a couple of years. According to the amendment, if I did that he would lose his Civil Service pension.

Of course not.

That is why I said the Deputy did not mean what is stated here. In the other case, it is not intended that a supervisor will get a pension on account of service as supervisor only.

If I am to understand from the Minister that a pension will only be given to a civil servant who has existing rights, and not to anybody who is appointed temporarily and who is brought in from an outside source, I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I would like to have a slight verbal alteration made in the section. In another place in the Bill we changed the word "dissolved" to "removed" for reasons that were pointed out. I want to have the word "dissolved" in sub-section (3) (c), line 59, changed to "removed" in order to free me from any nasty suggestions as to what I intended to do with these officers.

To "dissolve" the committee and "remove" the supervisor.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That Section 14, as amended, stand part of the Bill"— put and agreed to.
SECTION 16.
(1) Whenever a parent fails or neglects to cause his child to whom this Act applies to attend school in accordance with this Act and, so far as is known to the enforcing authority of the school attendance area in which the child resides, there is no reasonable excuse for such failure or neglect, such enforcing authority shall serve on such parent a warning in the prescribed form—
(a) requiring him within one week after such service either to cause his child named in the warning to attend school in accordance with this Act or to give to the enforcing authority a reasonable excuse for not so doing, and
(b) informing him that in the event of his failing to comply with the warning proceedings will be instituted against him under this Act in the District Court.
(2) If a parent does not comply with a warning duly served on him under this section, he shall, unless he satisfies the Court that he has used all reasonable efforts to cause the child to attend school in accordance with this Act, be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable in the case of a first offence to a fine not exceding twenty shillings and in the case of a second or subsequent offence (whether in relation to the same or another child) to a fine not exceding forty shillings.
(3) If in any proceedings against a parent under this section the parent satisfies the court that he has used all reasonable efforts to cause the child to whom the proceedings relate to attend school in accordance with this Act or the parent is convicted of a second or subsequent offence under this section in respect of the same child, the court if it thinks fit may—
(a) order the child to be sent to a certified industrial school, in which case the provisions of Part IV. of the Children Act, 1908, so far as applicable shall apply as if the order had been made under that Part of that Act, or
(b) may in accordance with the provisions of Part II. of the said Children Act, 1908, order the committal of the child to the care of a relative or other fit person named by the court, and in such case the provisions of that Part of that Act shall, so far as applicable, apply as if the order were an order made thereunder.
(4) Whenever a parent is convicted of an offence under this section in respect of a child, no warning shall be served on him or other proceedings taken against him under this section in respect of the same child within fourteen days after the date of such conviction.

—I move:—

To insert before sub-section (1) a new sub-section as follows:—

(1) If a child to whom this Act applies fails to attend school on any day in accordance with the terms of this Act the parent of such child shall, not later than the day following such failure to attend, notify in writing, the principal teacher of the school at which the child is in attendance, of the cause of absence.

This, at first sight, might appear to be put down in pursuance of my Cromwellian method of rigidity in connection with the parents, but in reality it is with a view to the protection of the parents from unnecessary prosecutions. I feel that for the practical working out of the Bill there is a gap that this amendment will fill. The child is at home from school and nobody is in a position to know whether there is or is not a reasonable cause for his absence. No notice has been received, and the Guards may set about issuing a warning. They will not know whether they should take action or not, or whether the child has reasonable cause to be at home. I now feel that if it is put as a duty on the parents in such a case to send notice to the teacher, the teacher will be in a position to know whether or not there is a reasonable cause and can give that information in the prescribed way and in the prescribed terms according to Section 15. I feel that there would not be any difficulty about that. It is the practice in most well-managed and well-run schools at present for notice of this kind to be sent whenever a child is kept at home. I believe that this would fill a gap that requires to be filled for the practical working of the Bill.

I think that this is rather a drastic amendment. Deputy O'Connell is not aware that some parents may have to go two miles to serve such a notice, and I think it is very unfair to ask parents to do that. I believe that most of them are in favour of sending the children to school and I think it would be very unfair to ask them to go a mile or two to notify the teacher as to why a child has been kept at home. I think that the amendment is very drastic.

I think that as the amendment stands it is a bit on the drastic side—that is, requiring that parents should give notice on the day following. I think that is too drastic, and some of the school attendance officers that I have consulted say that even in the city of Dublin it would be found to be a little on the drastic side. Shall I say "not later than the third day following"? Then there is another matter, the question of notice in writing. Of course, notice in person would do in that particular case.

I would suggest "or otherwise."

The difficulty of proving "or otherwise" is my difficulty. Supposing a parent told Katie to tell the teacher that Mary was not able to go to school.

You will have this difficulty: You will compel the illiterate parent to walk to the school to give notice, and that is rather drastic.

I am giving him three days to do it.

Even so. He will have to walk two or three miles in the direction, perhaps, opposite from where his work is. This might inflict serious inconvenience on the parent. He could send a verbal message by somebody else—a neighbour's child, for instance.

A written message would be easier to send.

I think a verbal message by a neighbour or a neighbour's child would not fulfil all the requirements, but a written message would, and the post office is usually within two miles.

It is four miles, sometimes.

Not in the case in question. It is usual for a note to be sent with a child explaining the reason for his absence the day before, and whatever day is fixed, whether it is the day after, two days after, or three days after, as the statutory day, the parent can send a note. It may be sent by any neighbour's child, and it would not necessarily require the attendance of the parent at the school.

Have all these people writing materials in the house, or are they able to write?

They will have children who can write.

When they are applying for pensions they can, somehow.

I would suggest that the educational policy that does not assume that there are writing materials in the home is wanting in some respect.

I am afraid that the Minister is not conversant with conditions in the country.

I did not debate this amendment, because I was rather anxious to meet Deputy O'Connell on it. I quite recognise that this is the custom in well-managed schools, and that in the majority of houses writing materials are available. But there is a good deal in the statement of Deputy Bolger. In a good many cases parents are practically illiterate, and the Minister should know very well that in some of these cases the writing of a letter is the greatest possible effort. They spend a week preparing it.

I have agreed to meet that.

The Minister will meet it only by allowing parents to give notice in person, or by inserting "or otherwise."

If you put in the words "or otherwise," you might as well drop the section. It was the plea early in this Bill that poor children at the age of six could not walk, and now the parents, if they want to send a message, cannot find half an hour to walk to the school. I might point out to the Deputy that it cannot be more than two miles.

I would like to point this out, that in drafting the amendment I deliberately left out any penalty for failure to comply with it. If the parent does not do this, there is no penalty except this, that he may have the Gárda down on him.

Would not that be a penalty?

Exactly; that would be a penalty, but if he chooses to send a note to the teacher to say that his child is at home for a reasonable cause he is avoiding that difficulty. These difficulties that the Deputy speaks of are in the Bill. I am rather trying to help the parent. If this is not done, nobody will know why the child is at home and the Guards will come down on the parent by sending him a notice or by summoning him. If it is known that there is a reasonable excuse, there will be no trouble. I think that the Deputy is taking a wrong view of it. If my amendment is not inserted, nothing will happen and these penalties will follow if the parent fails to do what I suggest.

I suggest that the time should be extended to a week.

I would not agree to a week, but I would agree to the third day.

You must remember that both parents may be working. How are they to go a mile or two to give notice? If it were made a week it would be reasonable.

In view of all the arguments, I would be willing to agree to Deputy O'Connell's suggestion to change it to three days.

I will get it re-drafted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move:

In sub-section (1) (a), line 49, to delete the words "one week" and substitute the words "two weeks."

I think it is not necessary to say much on this amendment. It is simply a case of changing the words "one week" to "two weeks." It has reference to the service of a notice to attend school. I think that the time limit given is too short and that it is better that the term should be extended to two weeks.

I am strongly opposed to this amendment, because I take it for granted that the notice will not be served until there has been already an absence of some length. I rather object to giving even one week after that. The offence is committed, the child is at home, and no reasonable excuse possibly has been sent in, and then the authorities proceed to issue the notice. Why, in that case, should any extra time be given? If there is reasonable excuse, of course it settles the matter. But this is assuming that there is no reasonable excuse; yet you give possibly a week or a fortnight before notice is served and then another fortnight. I see no justification for this amendment at all.

I beg to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move:—

In sub-section (1) (b), line 56, to add after the word "Court" the words "and that, in the event of recurrence at any future time of such failure or neglect, proceedings under this Act will be instituted without a repetition of such warning."

I dare say the Minister will say that this amendment is not necessary. I am not quite sure it is, but even if it is not necessary it would be a good thing to have it. The purpose of it is to prevent this kind of thing happening. That is one of the great drawbacks at present. The child is absent from school, a warning is sent, things go on all right for a month or so, and then the irregular attendance begins again. How will those who are in charge of a district proceed? Will they have to start to warn the parent a second time? I think that that should be prevented, and that is the explicit purpose of the amendment.

I feel that the words "at any future time" covers too long a period. Would the Deputy accept the words "within three months"?

I will have the amendment re-drafted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move:

To delete sub-section (3) (a).

This sub-section gives power to the authorities to cause a child to be sent to an industrial school if it be found that the parent cannot control the action of the child so as to make it attend school. I think that is a rather drastic step to take. I think that sending a child to an industrial school is a thing that should not be lightly done, and I am inclined to think that cases would be very rare where it would be found that the parent would be really unable to control the actions of the child, so as to make it attend school.

The section as it stands refers to two classes— the incorrigible parent and the incorrigible child. I want to point out that there is a discretion given to the Justice, having heard the facts of the case. He is not bound because the Gárda bring the case up to commit the child unless it is shown that it is necessary for the child or for the parents. I would like if there would be some assumption amongst Deputies that the District Justice might be a man of common-sense and of ordinary humanity.

Is not this involved pretty well in the present law?

Amendment put and declared lost.

I beg to move:

To delete sub-section (4).

This sub-section says that because a person is convicted of an offence under this Bill no proceedings of any kind will be taken against him for 14 days further. In other words, if he is summoned to the court and convicted he may keep his child at home for 14 days afterwards. I fail to see the reason underlying that particular sub-section. Why should he be allowed to do that? Why is this special provision put in to save the offender? He is convicted of keeping his child at home and he goes and defies the law and tells the magistrate: "Well, you can do nothing to me for 14 days anyhow." I would like to hear the argument in favour of the sub-section. I cannot conceive any possible argument in favour of it.

I was under the impression that it was not an unusual practice in matters of this kind. I also thought it was a little more humane. However, I am not particularly keen one way or the other. I have no objection to its deletion.

It seems as if you were going out of your way to protect this offender for a period of 14 days and to allow him to break the law for 14 days more, even without sending a warning or anything of that kind to him.

Amendment put and agreed to:
Question—"That Section 16 as amended stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Sub-section (2)—In any prosecution for an offence under this Act the burden of proof of any of the following matters in relation to the child to whom the prosecution relates shall lie on the person prosecuted, that is to say:—
(a) the age of the child,
(b) that the child attended a school in accordance with this Act on any particular day or during any particular period,
(c) that there was a reasonable excuse for the non-attendance of the child at a school in accordance with this Act on any particular day or during any particular period.
(d) that the child is receiving suitable elementary education in some manner other than by attending a national or other suitable school.

I beg to move:—

"To delete sub-section (2) (b)"

This sub-section proposes that the onus or the burden of proof showing that a child attended school on a specified day shall lie on the person prosecuted— therefore, on the parents. I am inclined to think that is asking a little too much, and that the onus of proof should rather lie on the teacher, who is in a position to bring proof of that kind. He has the roll-book showing the number of attendances, and, therefore, the onus of proof that the child attended should lie on the teacher rather than on the parent.

I think the onus of proof must lie on the person who brings the charge, and I agree with Deputy Heffernan in that. After all, we are bringing the charge, and the charge is that the child has been absent. I think we will have to establish that in the first case and the onus of proof should fall on the parents only to prove an excuse when excuses are brought forward for the child being absent. The first thing we will have to bring forward is that an offence has been committed, and we cannot assume that the party is guilty of the charge before we prove it. I accept the amendment.

It should not be the teacher. I think the teacher does not come into the thing at all, either as prosecutor or prosecuted. The parent can get a certificate from the teacher as to the attendance of the child, as well as anybody else, if he applies for it.

Would it be necessary to say that the teachers' roll shall be sufficient evidence?

That is said already.

Amendment put and agreed to.
SUB-SECTION 4 (SECTION 17).
In any prosecution for an offence under this Act, a certificate purporting to be signed by a duly qualified medical practitioner that the child to whom the prosecution relates is or was at any specified time suffering from a specified physical or mental malady or injury and that such malady or injury was of such a nature as to render the child unfit to attend school, or that some person residing in the house in which such child resides is or was suffering from a specified physical or mental malady or injury shall, until the contrary is proved, be evidence of such of the facts aforesaid as are stated in such certificate.

I beg to move:—

To add at the end of sub-section (4) the words "The cost of such medical certification shall be defrayed from the funds of the School Attendance Committee in the case of the Scheduled Boroughs and by the Minister for Education in all other cases."

As the Bill stands at present, I think there is no provision made for paying the cost of medical certification, and I think in the circumstances that it is right, where a certificate is required, that the cost shall be paid by the local body in the case of the scheduled areas and by the Minister for Education in the other areas. The provision is an obvious one when the parents would not be in a financial position to pay for the certification.

The Deputy used the words "where a certificate is necessary." Under this Bill, a certificate is not necessary. There is no such suggestion. I could not after all accept an amendment of this kind, the financial implications of which are so absolutely indefinite.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Before this section is put, I would like the Minister to make a note to the effect that in drafting the "reasonable cause" in (4) he may have to see that Section 17 (4) is in conformity with it.

Question—"That Section 17, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 18.
Sub-section (2) Whenever any person requires to ascertain or prove for any purpose arising under this Act the age of a child such person shall be entitled to obtain from the enforcing authority of the school attendance area in which such child resides a requisition in the prescribed form for a certificate of the date of the birth of such child and shall, on presenting such requisition duly filled up and signed together with such fee as shall be fixed by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health at the office of the superintendent registrar or appropriate registrar of births and deaths, be entitled to be supplied by such superintendent registrar or registrar with a copy duly certified under the Births and Deaths Registration Acts (Ireland), 1863 to 1880, of the entry in the register books kept under those Acts of the birth of such child.

I beg to move:

In sub-section (2), line 19, after the word "Health" to insert the words "which fee shall not in any case exceed the amount of one shilling."

The Bill as it stands does not fix any definite fee in regard to children's certificates of birth. I want to keep the expense of this Bill, so far as the parent is concerned, to the lowest possible amount. The effect of the amendment is that the fee should not exceed one shilling. In view of the small amount of clerical work involved in issuing the certificate, I think a fee of one shilling is sufficient.

I am willing to consent to the amendment if Deputy Heffernan does not press for a fee of one shilling.

Is there not some definite charge at present? I think it is 2/6.

In certain Acts it is only sixpence. For instance, in connection with pensions and matters of that kind, and some other local matters, the charge is sixpence.

My amendment says that the fee cannot exceed one shilling. It may be twopence or three-pence, if you like.

I will see how far I can meet Deputy Heffernan's wishes without interfering with any existing Act.

Then I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 18 to 22 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

I move:

Before Section 23 to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) The Minister may by order from time to time apply the provisions of this Act to children or any class of children who have attained the age of fourteen years and have not attained the age of 16 years.

(2) The Minister may by and in any order made by him under this section do all or any of the following things, that is to say:—

(a) limit the application of the order to any particular part of Saorstát Eireann.

(b) except any children or class of children from the operation of the order,

(c) except any of the provisions of this Act from the operation of the order,

(d) make such adaptations and modifications of the provisions of this Act in their application to the children or class of children to which the order relates as the Minister shall think necessary for the purposes of such application,

(e) extend, restrict, amend, or revoke any previous order made under this section.

(3) Whenever the Minister makes an order under this section applying the provisions of this Act to children or any class of children authorised by this section, the provisions of this Act shall apply to such children or class of children subject to and in accordance with the terms of the order for so long as the order continues in force.

(4) Every order made by the Minister under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if a resolution is passed by either such House within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat annulling such order, such order shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under such order.

I do not agree with this amendment, but I do not think that it would be useful to enter into any long discussion upon it at this stage, as we discussed the matter under a previous section. I object to any amendment that will have the effect of extending the school age beyond fourteen years. The effect of the amendment will be that the Minister will have power in particular areas to extend the age. We have, however, made our protest already in regard to this, and I formally object to the extension of the age.

The Deputy has said: "We have made our protest."

I mean, those of us who opposed it. I am not speaking for my Party.

The bulk of the Deputies who spoke supported much more drastic provisions than this—I mean the members of the Deputy's Party.

I mean those who opposed the previous amendment. I am not, as I say, speaking for my Party.

Amendment put and agreed to.
New section ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Section 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. O'CONNELL

The next amendment is one in the name of Deputy Hogan, but in view of the desirability of finishing the Committee Stage of the Bill this evening we will leave this amendment over until the Report Stage.

Amendment 43 not moved.
SECTION 24.

In the absence of Deputy Good, I formally move the following amendment:

To add after sub-section (4) a new sub-section as follows:—

Immediately upon the commencement of this Act the Minister shall set up Advisory Committees in Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Galway and Sligo, with whom he will consult at regular intervals on all matters affecting the education of the young people in their respective areas. These committees shall include representatives of the County Councils, Urban Councils—where such exist—teachers engaged in Primary Education and in Technical Education, Chambers of Commerce and others, appointed by the Minister.

I think this is outside the scope of the Bill.

I was of that opinion myself, and I will therefore withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question—"That Sections 24 and 25 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SCHEDULE.
The County Borough of Cork.
The County Borough of Dublin.
The County Borough of Limerick.
The County Borough of Waterford.
Blackrock Urban District.
Dun Laoghaire Urban District.
Rathmines and Rathgar Urban District.
Pembroke Urban District.

I move:—

"To add at the end of the Schedule the words `The Borough of Clonmel'."

I have had considerable correspondence from the Town Clerk of Clonmel, which is backed up by the School Attendance Committee and, I think, also by the Corporation, asking that their town be included in the Schedule. Many reasons are given why that should be done. One reason is that the present committee carries on the work of child welfare and the provision of meals to school children as well as other useful work of that kind. The school attendance in the borough has been very high. I think the percentage is over ninety The town of Tipperary also asked Deputies to propose a similar amendment, but I did not put it down. There is a similar one down in the name of Deputy D'Alton.

If the Minister does not object, we could take this amendment and mine together.

I do not mind if they both go together.

I propose:—

"To add at the end of the Schedule the words `Tipperary Urban District'."

Deputy Heffernan has stated the reasons why Clonmel should be placed in this position. There they have a Committee of Management, consisting of the managers of schools, the Catholic Dean and the Protestant Dean, with some members of the Corporation. They are identified with child welfare, medical service, dentistry, and all the work of the Board of Health, which covers a good deal of the work connected with the children in school and otherwise. They have knowledge, through their various officers, of the conditions that prevail in all the houses. This Bill was brought in, to my mind, for the purpose of enforcing the law when it became necessary.

If the children had been sent to school as they should have been, and if the late Act had been carried through by the Committee and the officers there would be no necessity for this Bill at all. This Bill was introduced to meet the cases where children were not attending school and where no steps were taken to see that they did attend, and where it was necessary for the law to be carried into force. In Clonmel the attendance is 95 per cent. In Tipperary the attendance is over 95 per cent. At one time the attendance in Tipperary was as low as between 50 and 60 per cent. The work is being done by the local Committee. They are going from house to house. These children are attending school. I think it has been the feeling of the House that the less compulsion there is the better. As Minister for Education, Dr. MacNeill dwelt on that point. We want to get the children to attend by moral suasion, by teaching the parents their duty towards the children. When you get Committees to do work which cannot be done better by any new system I do not see why they should not be allowed to carry on the work, the veto to remain in the hands of the Minister. If a Council is not doing their duty the Government can send a Commissioner there. In the same way it will be in the Minister's hands to do a similar thing if he feels the duties are not being done effectively. The schools have maintained their percentage in the last two years. I think they are doing their work properly, and I think it is better to allow those who are doing certain work well to continue in that work.

May I suggest that this matter be not pressed now, that it be discussed on report so that the Bill may be passed by 3 o'clock.

I am absolutely opposed to adding anything to this schedule. My view is not to add but to take away from the schedule. I made that clear to Deputy Doyle and Deputy Morrissey when the question was put me as to why we are employing the Civic Guard. There may be other centres as efficient as Clonmel, and in many cases there may be some not as efficient. It is not a case of the merit of Clonmel or any other place. The idea is to get rid of as many places as possible from the schedule and not to add to it. I am surprised to see the eagerness of Deputy D'Alton and Deputy Heffernan to add to the rates in those places by keeping on School Attendance Officers.

I wish to advance the claim of Kilkenny in Amendment 49. I will bring it up on Report.

My difficulty is that Dun Laoghaire and other urban areas are going to be allowed in the Schedule. I shall raise the matter on the Report Stage.

Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 49 not moved.
Question—"That the Schedule stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Question—"That the title stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Bill reported with amendments.
Fourth Stage ordered for Wednesday, 24th February.
The Dáil went into Committee.
Top
Share