In connection with the amendments, there was some misunderstanding to the effect that the amendments to the Schedule, dealing with the insertion of certain words, would all be automatically repeated. That was incorrect. Deputy D'Alton has given notice to move amendments about Clonmel and Tipperary, and other Deputies desire to oppose an amendment that was on the Paper before dealing with the Borough of Kilkenny.
PUBLIC BUSINESS. - SCHOOL ATTENDANCE BILL, 1925—REPORT STAGE.
Ordered: That the amendments to the Bill be taken in Committee.
The Dáil went into Committee.
I move Amendment 1:—
In page 3, Section 2, line 2, after the word "means" to insert the words "and includes," and in line 3 after the word "years" to add the words "and every other child to whom this Act is for the time being applied by virtue of an order made by the Ministry under the power in that behalf hereinafter conferred on him."
This amendment is really necessitated by the new Section 23 which was introduced at a rather late stage on the last Committee Stage of the Bill. It is purely a drafting amendment to make provision that this Act shall apply not merely to children from the age of 6 to 14, but also in the case of other children over the age of 14 who, by order of the Minister, will come within the Act under this new section. I think Amendment 2 is designed to meet the same purpose.
One of the weaknesses of this amendment is that it is quite indefinite as to when it will be put into operation. Of course it is recognised that it will be possible to put this provision into operation much earlier in some areas than in others. It is desirable that, wherever possible, it should be put into force at the earliest moment. It would be well, I think, if we had an assurance from the Minister as to the course that is likely to be followed by the Department in connection with this matter.
What the Deputy says is perfectly true, that it may be possible to put this into operation much earlier in some districts than in others. There are some areas in which we may have to wait for a very long period before it can be put into operation. A certain number of inquiries will have to be made as to the state of affairs in different areas. I can assure the Deputy that, wherever possible, there will be no unavoidable delay in exercising the powers conferred by the section.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment 2 not moved.
I move Amendment 3:
In page 3, section 4 (2), paragraph (a), to delete all from the word "or" in line 19 to the end of the paragraph, and at the end of the sub-section to add a new paragraph as follows:—
"(d) That the child has been prevented from attending school by some other sufficient cause."
The only explanation I can give about this amendment is that it is the best we could do to meet the wishes of the House as expressed the last day.
It is certainly an improvement on the original.
If any Deputy thinks that there is a better way, I should like him to put forward his views, and I can assure him they will be sympathetically considered.
I suppose the District Justice will be the judge in this matter?
I am afraid we must depend on the District Justice. I do not see how we can get out of that in the administration of any provision of this kind.
As I raised the matter on the last day, I desire to say that I believe the Minister has got about the best form of words that could be got to meet the particular case. So far as I am concerned, I am satisfied. As Deputy Good has said, it is an improvement on the original.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move Amendments 4 and 8, as they deal with the same matter.
4.—In page 3, Section 4 (3), line 29, to insert before the word "The" the words "Until the year 1936."
8.—In page 3, Section 4 (4), line 36, to insert before the word "The" the words "Until the year 1936."
This may not be considered a very practical proposition, but the amendments are put forward simply as a matter of principle. I dislike the proviso in these sub-sections, and the amendments are moved to indicate in the Bill that we are yielding to the force of circumstances in allowing the proviso to stand. I understand that the amendments are not likely to be opposed from the benches that opposed on the last day the removal of the whole proviso. I do not press the amendments strongly, but I bring them forward as a matter of principle.
As one who does not wish to see sub-sections (3) or (4) in the Bill. I support Deputy Thrift's amendments. If we cannot get rid of them altogether, the best we can possibly hope for is to get rid of them in ten years' time.
I support the amendment, as it mitigates the evil.
I support the amendment because the section, as it stands at present, invites people in different parts of the country, where no necessity for keeping children at home exists, to keep them at home. Some note introduced into the clause that will suggest in some way that it is really objectionable and that we hope to overcome that objectionable position within a certain time, will be very valuable not only in bringing the conditions to an end at that particular period of time, but in restricting the possible bad effects of the section at present.
I was waiting for some light from the benches that spoke so eloquently on this matter on the last occasion. They have been referred to; they have been almost invited by Deputy Thrift to give the amendment their support. I agree with Deputy Thrift that it is not a very practical amendment from the point of view of legislation at the present time. The Deputy said it was a matter of principle. It seems to me as if we were ashamed of what we did last time and were trying now to get out of it. I want to explain that if I leave this amendment to the House I am not a bit ashamed of what we did the last time. I do not think there is any necessity for this amendment. Personally, I would prefer to let the year 1935 legislate for the year 1936 and that we should not legislate for it now. Beyond the dislike that I have to legislating ten years ahead and, if I might so put it, pretending to be somewhat better than we are, I have no insuperable objection to the amendment. If the Dáil desires to accept it, I shall not put any obstacles in its way, but, so far as most of us are concerned, it is like the man who plants the seedling of the oak.
The amendment serves the purpose mentioned by Deputy Mulcahy. It shows that, in putting in this section, we are merely making a concession to existing circumstances.
That was the best argument put forward.
I wonder would it be possible to be a little more precise and to say "in deference to wishes expressed by certain Deputies on the Farmers' Benches."
Would Deputy Thrift put into the amendment "the 1st January, 1936"?
I had that written originally, but, when I looked into the Bill, I found that the clause only operates in April and October.
Amendments put and agreed to.
I move Amendment 5:
In page 3, Section 4 (3), line 31, to delete the words "1st day of April" and substitute the words "17th day of March."
Deputies may remember that there was considerable discussion on this matter on the last occasion. The view was put forward from the Benches that I am now looking at and by some of the Deputies that were then there, that some effort should be made to meet the agricultural needs of the country in this connection. Various suggestions were made, and I promised to consider them. I definitely stated that though I promised to consider them, I could not promise that that consideration would lead to acceptance of the suggestion put forward—that we should extend the period at both ends, so to speak, or that we should take power to provide different periods for different parts of the country. I considered that matter very fully, and I came to the conclusion that it was impossible to meet, as I desired to meet, the views put forward by the various Deputies. That was so, for a variety of reasons. The too-great extension of the period would lead to difficulty in the enforcing of the Act by the enforcing authority. From the school point of view, it would be objectionable also. It did not seem to me that the alternative suggestion—to have different periods in different parts of the country—would work out well in practice. After due consideration, I came to the conclusion that the real economic argument was for exemption at the beginning. That is where the necessity comes in, especially in connection with the utilization of the fine weather in the spring to put down potatoes. In considering that, it became apparent that the date actually mentioned in the Bill, however it might suit County Cavan, for which Deputy Baxter spoke, would not suit other portions of the country, and that an earlier date was advisable for other portions of the country, owing to the urgency of getting the potato crop in when favourable weather would occur. That is the reason why I would like the Dáil to adopt the suggestion of the 17th March as the date on which the first of these periods shall begin. That is as far as I can reasonably go to meet what I consider the very plausible and reasonable views put forward by the Deputies representing farming interests and other Deputies on the last occasion.
Deputy Baxter made a very strong case as regards County Cavan. I dare say the same conditions exist in other counties of the Saorstát. That was the reason I, for one, urged that a difference should be made between those counties where child labour is largely employed and counties where it is employed to a very small extent. I think the Minister has met the point very fairly in fixing the 17th of March as the first of these dates. That would provide for the potato-planting period.
I have a general objection to the lengthening of this period, as I argued on the last day, but if the Minister is satisfied that it is necessary and that it meets a substantial claim advanced from the Farmers' benches, I will not press my opposition to the amendment.
The argument was put forward that children might be useful in thinning the turnips at a later period. Two things helped me to come to a decision on that. First, the small farmer, whom we had particularly in mind, would be very little affected by that, and then, at the later period of the year, the evenings are long and there is not the same urgency that there would be about the harvest at the later portion of the season or about the setting of the potatoes at the other period.
It was more in the interests of labour that I made that suggestion. This is the time that children could earn a considerable sum of money ("No"). It would be in the interests of the farmers, but it would be more in the interest of the parents of the children that they should earn money at that time, as they can earn it in my part of the country.
I am afraid Deputy Conlan misunderstands the Bill somewhat and misunderstands the "No" which greeted his suggestion. Under the Bill, it is not possible for children to earn money as he suggests.
Amendment agreed to.
I move Amendment 6:
In page 3, Section 4, sub-sections (3) and (4), lines 32, 34, 39 and 41, to delete the word "child" and substitute therefor the word "boy."
This amendment has been put down following a close study of the arguments used during the debate that took place when we moved to delete sub-section (3) and sub-section (4). In effect, these clauses, which have been retained in the Bill, give power to keep children at home to do light agricultural work during certain periods of the year. One Deputy after another who spoke in favour of the retention of the clauses referred to the usefulness of a young lad of 12 or 13 years of age in putting down potatoes or in helping to gather the crops. I want to secure, by this amendment, that these clauses will apply only to the young lads of 12 or 13 years and that they will not affect the girls of that age—in other words, that young girls of 12 or 13 years will not be exempted from attendance in order to engage in light agricultural work. I do not think there will be many Deputies who will advocate that young girls of 12 or 13 years should engage in light agricultural work. I, therefore, feel certain that there will be no difficulty in accepting this amendment.
I cannot quite agree with Deputy O'Connell, and I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment. He says a young lad might be very useful. A young lass might be quite as useful. I am not going to attack this problem from the point of view that it contravenes the Constitution in regard to sex distinction. I presume it does not. I will leave that aside and attack it from another point of view. Personally, I am not sure that it is not more desirable to have a girl of from 12 to 14 years engaged in light operations of this kind than to have her at school or even studying. I think it is a more natural and a more healthy thing that at that period of her life she should be relieved from going to school. I certainly would prefer that girls at that age should get a little more manual work than that boys should, from the mere health point of view. From the economic point of view, I do not think it would be fair that the small farmer who happens to be blessed with a number of daughters and who does not happen to be afflicted with any sons should be penalised as compared with his neighbour. I hope Deputy O'Connell, when he considers the arguments I have advanced, will not find it necessary to press his amendment.
I am rather amazed at this new theory advanced by the Minister as to what contributes to the health of children at the age of 12 years or thereabouts. It is the first time that I heard such a theory advanced. I would like to know whether this theory is a theory of the Minister's own or whether it is based on experience or medical reports or anything of that kind. I never heard the theory advanced before.
It is the result of vague discussions with medical men.
The theory is quite new to me. As Deputy Corish reminds me, it has not been suggested even from the Farmers' benches.
They would never think of such a thing.
They would not be so ingenious as to think of an argument of that kind. I can fancy parents quoting that in every District Court all over the country when they are brought up for having their girls running about the roads instead of being at school. The Minister for Education, they will say, thinks they would be better off from a health point of view, and health is the chief necessity. I hope he will tell us that he is not serious in putting forward that argument. I would be sorry if I thought he were, but I do not believe that he is. Of course, it can be said that a girl should be useful about the house at this time. I personally would not like to contemplate the general keeping at home of young girls and the putting of them to work on a farm at that particular time of the year. I do not think it is the right thing to do. I think they would be better off at school. I may point out that there is this advantage: Special attention might be given to the particular subject girls have to learn at school over and above what the boys learn. Girls have to do one extra subject, that is needlework. If, during this particular time of the year, boys were at home —and the vast majority of our schools are mixed schools—special attention could be paid to needlework. The Convention of Geneva says that it is only on the basis of vocational instruction that you could defend keeping them at home at all. I think it is not proposed or suggested that our women when they grow up should be engaged in actual farming operations as a vocation. I do not think, therefore, it could be said that if they are engaged in putting down potatoes in the spring they are engaged in vocational instruction. I think the amendment is a reasonable one, and, in all the circumstances, the Minister ought to accept it.
There is one aspect of this that I would like to refer to. I think we have to discuss this apart altogether from the question as to whether it is reasonable or not to keep young people of 12 or 14 years of age at home to do light agricultural work. Personally I think there would be very grave objections to differentiating between boys and girls in the matter of light agricultural work of that kind. Some of us have had opportunities in very poor parts of the country of seeing the conditions of persons on small holdings. One thing that struck us very much is that the difference between a fair measure of comfort on a small holding and very poor and straitened circumstances depends upon the whole outlook of the woman on the holding. If you have a woman of the house with an interest in the work of the holding, you have a comfortable home and a fairly comfortable living, whereas if the woman has not that interest you have neither comfort nor any kind of a fair living. I think it would be a great mistake to differentiate between boys and girls in the matter of engaging in agricultural work between 12 and 14, if you are going to have them engaging in it at all. On the matter of needlework I think that the danger of making this differentiation would be increased if you are going to make it for the purpose of teaching the lady of the house needlework. Training in needlework is very essential, but I think that ordinary and proper provision for it should be made in the ordinary course of the school year, without reference to the fact that girls should do it when the boys are putting down potatoes.
There is just one point that occurred to me in connection with this section and possibly it might be useful for the House to consider it. It has been pointed out on several occasions by those who are in touch with juvenile employment and those who register at the Exchanges for employment as juveniles, that there is a very much larger percentage of illiterates amongst the girls than amongst the boys. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of that, but that is a fact. That being so, it appears to me that it is essential that a protection in a Bill like this should be put in in favour of girls. The section says that they are only to be exempted from attendance at school while engaged in light agricultural work. What one is afraid of is that advantage will be taken of this section to keep these girls at home, and that instead of putting them at agricultural work which, as the Minister points out in certain circumstances, from a health point of view might be advantageous, it will possibly be found that the larger number of them will be employed at domestic work. I think that is an aspect of the question that ought to be considered, and I think on the whole, when one comes to consider it, that possibly the solution put forward by Deputy O'Connell has a good deal to commend it. It is very undesirable, I think, that parents should have the opportunity of making claims on the school time of children at the period when school time is of very great importance, and I would urge on the Minister that in view of the experience of those connected with juvenile employment all over the Saorstát—it is not confined to any particular area— that parents will try to keep the girls at home, because they are more useful at minding the younger children, and as I said, we must take steps to protect these girls against the inroads on the part of their parents.
I hope the Minister will not give way on this amendment. I do not see why discrimination should be made between boys and girls. I do not believe that the statement as to the percentage of illiteracy being higher in the case of girls than in the case of boys applies to the areas occupied by small holders. I believe it would be more applicable to towns and cities than to these places. Deputy O'Connell talked also about girls being employed at domestic work. I think that cannot possibly be the case because domestic work in the rural areas is very slight in comparison with agricultural work, and girls of that age are just as useful at agricultural work as boys are. Apart from that, I think it should be very useful from the health point of view, if they are allowed to participate in hay-making work at that particular time of the year. I believe it is very suitable and will be very useful for them.
As regards the point raised by Deputy Good, it might be that in some of the towns there are more illiterates amongst girls than amongst boys, but I hope it is not suggested that by giving an extension that amounts to twenty days in the year, we are going to make an illiterate of a person that otherwise would not be an illiterate. I suggest that the most obvious explanation of illiteracy is the fact that people do not attend school. At least I hope that is the explanation. I think the education of the girls is not lower than the education of boys. On the whole it is rather the contrary; they reach a higher standard of proficiency than the boys in these matters. The argument that was stressed on the last day and that I have already referred to on an earlier amendment was the necessity of getting in the potato crop. That is the reason that I propose putting back the date from 1st April to 17th March, because the girls in that matter are quite as useful and as necessary as the boys. I think that Deputy O'Connell can scarcely combat that point of view. I am not quite sure exactly what Deputy O'Connell's picture of a small farmer's house in the country is.
I was reared in one.
The suggestion that women are not engaged in agricultural work may be true of one particular portion of the country, but it certainly is not so all over the country; they take a pretty considerable share in the work. The farmer's wife and the farmer's daughters play a very considerable part in the work, especially at these critical periods in the agricultural history of the year— the spring or the harvest. On the whole, I am afraid that we must keep to what is in the Bill, in this particular matter. Deputy Mulcahy has very clearly pointed out the necessity, so far as a number of people are concerned, for this.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move:—
In page 3, Section 4, sub-sections (3) and (4), lines 35 and 42, to delete the words "for his parent" and substitute therefor in each case the words "on or about his parents' farm or holding."
This amendment is one that I will press much more strongly on the Minister, because I think it is one that is very necessary. It is proposed in this exemption clause that the reason for keeping the child at home should be that he is engaged in light agricultural work for his parent. I am proposing to substitute "for his parent""on or about his parent's farm or holding." This amendment more clearly and definitely expresses what was in the mind of the framers of this clause. I have gone to some trouble to examine somewhat similar legislation in other countries and I have never come across the phrase "for his parent," while phrases somewhat like the one I propose are used in legislation in most of the Canadian provinces and in the United States, where they do give such exemptions. There is no need to argue in favour of the amendment. The reasons for its acceptance seem to be self-evident. "For his parent" is very indefinite, and in my view does not meet the object which the framers of the clause had in mind. Neither does it fit in with the arguments used on the last occasion when it was carried. The whole argument then was that the parent should have the help of his child at this particular time, but putting in "for his parent" may mean quite a different thing, something that neither the framers nor supporters of the clause had in mind. This is a very reasonable amendment and I hope it will be accepted.
I hope the Minister will accept this amendment. I do not think it can be said that it is unnecessary. There is a possible interpretation of the words "for his parent" which I do not think was intended. It does not seem to me that this proposed change really affects the substance, but it makes very much more clear and definite what is intended.
May I ask what is the interpretation?
I think it is quite open to say that the child is kept at home to work for his parent if his parent really lends him to work for someone else, for nothing if you like, but it may be for a consideration given otherwise.
If it were for a consideration given otherwise, that undoubtedly would be employment of that child by the other person.
It would be impossible to establish that there was employment. That is my whole point. The child might be kept from school and sent by his parent to work somewhere else, and there would be consideration in kind. Some work might be done in return or a horse might be lent—there would be some consideration for the employment of the child. It would be impossible for anyone to establish satisfactorily that there was consideration given in that way or that there would be employment in such a case. On the other hand, if the amendment is accepted, if the child is engaged somewhere else it will be known at once that he was not complying with the law, as he would not be engaged about his parent's farm. It could be clearly established in that case that he was not complying with the law, whereas if you leave in "for his parent," no matter where the child is engaged when away from school, you are not in a position to say that he was not in fact "engaged in light agricultural work for his parent," because even if his parent sends him to work somewhere else he is engaged for his parent.
Deputy O'Connell must be aware that it is the custom all over the country for farmers to help one another at certain seasons, such as in the spring, and in the autumn at the threshing. If people were precluded from helping their neighbours in that way it would make matters difficult for them.
Does the Deputy argue that the words in the Bill "engaged in light agricultural work for his parent" would permit of the child being sent to work for a neighbour? That is the real danger.
That is what I want to prevent.
That is the interpretation put on the clause by a Deputy on the Farmers' benches.
Deputy Baxter, when he brought forward this matter made it clear that it was absolutely necessary for small farmers who were not in a position to employ labour to have their children to help them at certain periods of the year. It was not his intention to allow children to be sent out for remuneration or consideration of one sort or another. What was clearly in the Deputy's mind was that these small farmers should be able to keep their children at home to help them because they were not in a position to employ labour at certain periods of the year. Therefore, I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.
I find myself somewhat in a difficulty, because I should have thought the words in the Bill in some respects were more satisfactory than those proposed in the amendment. In another connection I remember we had some other difficulty about the word "holding." It is exceedingly difficult, for instance, when a man lets land to another for eleven months to decide whose farm it is. I know we had that difficulty in connection with the Drainage Bill, and I think we deliberately avoided the word "holding." If we did not avoid it, I know it was a source of considerable difficulty as to how it should be interpreted. I must say that I would prefer the form of words in the Bill. However, as there will be a Report Stage I shall give consideration to the matter before then.
Will there be another stage?
As the Bill has been recommitted we will have to have a Report Stage. The only question is whether we shall take that stage to-morrow or later.
I thought we might take it this evening.
In that case, I do not feel inclined to accept the amendment at present.
The Minister believes that the intention of the words proposed is the same as those in the Bill. I take it that is his attitude, but that from a legal point of view he prefers the words in the Bill.
That was my main contention, but a point has been raised by Deputy Conlan. I had not considered whether there is a custom in the country such as he refers to. If there is a widespread custom of that type, I should like to have time to consider how far that should be recognised until this particular year—1936. It is not an aspect of the case that I have considered. My objection at the start undoubtedly was that I thought the words in the Bill were preferable to the words put forward by Deputy O'Connell, but now that another point has been raised by Deputy Conlan I should like to give it fuller consideration. I will confess that that also is in my mind as well as the other interpretation.
It was to guard against this very kind of thing that I put down the amendment. There may be a custom of this kind in a few places, but it is the kind of custom that is responsible for the irregular attendance we have in the rural areas and it is a custom that, if recognised at all, would be open to very great abuse. Any child, whether he is required on his father's farm or not, could claim to be absent during those twenty days and plead this custom, and it would be very difficult for any District Justice to convict in a case like that. The parent might say: "I lent my boy to a neighbour to do some work." It is these very things that the amendment was put down to guard against and I would urge the Minister not to give any consideration to that matter. The plea originally made was that the small farmer would want the help of his children at certain periods of the year. That was the whole argument on which this claim was based, and that was the argument that was accepted by the Dáil, as Deputy D'Alton has rightly said. It was on that ground that this clause was retained. As Deputy Conlan has shown, the words "for his parent" might be interpreted as meaning working for a neighbour. We know that it would be impossible to establish employment in such a case, although it might be well known that there was a consideration given of one kind or another for the services of the child. That was the very reason that this amendment was put down, because it limits the employment of the child to the parent's farm. I do not think there will be any difficulty about these words. No claim can arise about land as under the Drainage Act. All the Justice will have to say is whether the child was engaged on his father's holding or not. If there was any doubt about the ownership of the particular field where he was working I am sure any sensible District Justice would not convict. I do hope the Minister will see that this amendment really expresses more clearly the intention of those who argued in favour of the retention of this clause and supported it on the last occasion than the words in the Bill, which are open to a very wide interpretation indeed.
Deputy O'Connell need not be apprehensive that there will be what he calls a lending out of the child. These exchanges of labour only occur between near neighbours, and, in fact, they only occur at all because the work cannot be effectively carried out except through a combination amongst small farmers for particular kinds of work at particular seasons of the year.
Can Deputy Conlan say that when help like that is exchanged in different parts of the country children under 14 are included as portion of the help?
Certainly.
In the particular agricultural industry that we are acquainted with in the Northern area, the flax industry, a special class of weather is required and children do the work. It is work eminently suited to children, who would need to be available on any day that would be found suitable. Usually people engaged on this work find that they require the assistance of more children than their own and they procure the assistance of the neighbour's children. Similarly they would send their children to assist their neighbours. Work in connection with the flax industry is very important work. The interests of the agricultural community are served by having children engaged in the work and I do not think that for the matter of a day or two the interests of the children would be, to any great extent, affected. When engaged on the flax industry the children are training their hands and feet, and they require to train their hands and feet just as much as their brains. I think there is too little attention given to the training of the hands and feet and there is rather too much being hammered into the children's heads.
Deputy McGoldrick is adopting an attitude of frank opposition. It is an argument against the Bill as a whole.
No.
Deputies who heard him speaking before and who have heard his speech now will realise that he is adopting an attitude of opposition to the Bill. The question now is one of whether we are going to encourage the hiring-out of children, let the hiringout be for money or for kind. I hope the House will agree that it is undesirable that parents should lend their children to do agricultural work, even in the districts Deputy McGoldrick speaks of, in defiance of the general purposes of the section as originally proposed. In the course of the discussion not one word was used in favour of this section except what implied that the work of the children was to be done on their parents' holding. Every argument used was in favour of that proposition. Now we find the idea germinating—and the Minister is giving some kind of encouragement to it—that the work should not be confined to the parents' holding, that the children should be lent about, transferred from one holding to another, and that the fullest advantage should be taken of the ten or twenty days' exemption.
There was a reasonable possibility that the twenty days mentioned in the Bill would not be needed, that only two, three or four days would be utilised, and there was a maximum period of ten days in spring and ten in autumn allowed. Now we are making it possible—even probable—that as between one farm and another the whole twenty days of abstention will be used because the children will be occupied in working for their parents and the friends of their parents. I hope the Minister will see that the argument for the section was an argument in favour of children working only on their parents' land. The object of the amendment is to make it quite clear that that purpose should be embodied in the Bill.
The contributions to this discussion show it is the desire of the opponents of the Bill and of those who are anxious for child labour on the land that children should be given as much exemption as possible. I hope the Minister will be firm in this matter and will not hesitate to accept the amendment.
I should not like it to be understood that I am an opponent of the measure. I am in hearty accord with its object; there is nothing more needed than a Bill of this sort. At the same time, I would like to see sound legislation. I do not want legislation to be so watertight as to make it possible that the economic interests of the country and the physical requirements of the child might be overlooked. Such legislation would not serve the cause we all have at heart. That cause would be better served if we legislated in such a way as would tend towards the better development of the physical, economic and educational interests of the community.
It is not fair that Deputy Johnson should characterise the Deputies who took part in this discussion as opponents of the Bill. If he so alluded to me, I may say that I have not adopted an attitude of opposition.
He did not mention that.
A very valuable point has been brought out by the putting down of this amendment. The discussion that took place in Committee on this Bill was on the basis that this work was for the parent. Having heard the discussion, a number of Deputies were influenced to vote for it, feeling that there was a pretty considerable possibility that the whole of the ten days in the spring and the ten days in the autumn would not be used up. If we are going to have the scope of the Bill widened to include people for whom the children can work, we are going to drift into a position in which the whole of the twenty days will be used up and the effect of that on the school work will be very great. If, from the 17th March to the 15th May, every child in the school, on varying days, is going to be absent for ten days, it will create a state of chaos for the teacher. If the scope over which the child can be employed under this section is going to be widened from what was understood in the original discussion, you open the whole question again.
It has been generally recognised, not only here but in the country, that this Bill was necessary because of the poor attendance at schools. The House, in its wisdom, has decided that there are to be certain days in the spring and autumn on which a child may be absent for the purpose of working for its parents. It must be understood generally that one of the causes of bad attendance at school has been this lending about of children from place to place. It is the children we have to consider; we must look to their future, and surely it is not in their interests to allow such a loophole as is provided in this section in the Bill? I hope the Minister will consider the amendment sympathetically. We all have the interests of the children at heart, and I think it would be very unfair to let this section stand as it is. I think it would be open to grave abuse. It might be very much abused and the very thing we want to prevent—bad attendance in the schools—would be increased or, at least, would not be improved in the slightest degree.
I confess I am more or less in the position I occupied when I last stood up to speak. A point has been raised that I have not given full consideration to. Deputy Conlan's point of view appears to be similar to the point of view stressed by Deputy McGoldrick. There are certain crops which, unless you get them in quickly at certain periods of the year, will stand little chance of being saved and great damage will thereby be done. I understand it is the custom for neighbours to help one another in the particular way suggested—by allowing their children to work. One man allows his children to work for his neighbour and the help is reciprocated. I would like to give fuller consideration to this matter and view it in all its bearings. I suggest that Deputy O'Connell could bring the matter forward again, when I will be in a position to deal with it more definitely. I cannot accept the amendment as it stands.
I am satisfied to bring it forward again if I am given an assurance that there will be an opportunity. Of course I accept the Minister's word.
It was understood that the Report Stage would not be completed to-day; therefore there would be sufficient time in which to consider this amendment.
There are other amendments down that may have to be reconsidered. Deputies will remember that quite a number of amendments were got through hurriedly on the last day. We would require some time to consider the Bill as it has been amended. Probably the Bill may stand as it is, but it is quite possible that there may be alterations elsewhere.
On those conditions I am quite prepared to withdraw the amendment. I hope the Minister will not place any undue weight on this lending-out system that he has heard of. Crops may want to be saved at a certain time; but if all the crops have to be saved together where will be the advantage of transferring helpers? Deputy Conlan speaks of threshing. That is one of the things I never anticipated children would be engaged at.
Children are very useful there.
They are very useful at a great many things. The intention of the House was not to allow children to remain from school for the purpose of engaging in such operations and they would be better out of them.
It is no place for them.
That shows what dangers lie in leaving the section as it is. As Deputy Mulcahy rightly pointed out, there is danger in encouraging this lending about. As regards the anxiety to get in a crop, I would be sorry to think it would depend almost entirely on the labours of the children. The people who have passed the school age are the people who give most help on those occasions. I hope the Minister will see his way to accept the amendment.
I think we began this discussion with the Minister believing that the actual legal force of the words as passed in Committee, taken in conjunction with other sections, was that the work must be for the parent at his own home. I hope he will bear that in mind.
I assure the Deputy I will bear that in mind. That was the impression I began with.
I do not know how the Minister is going to get all this information within the short space of two or three days. As Deputy McGoldrick, who seems to have impressed the Minister, may not be here when this matter comes before us again, I would like to say that the conditions in Donegal regarding the employment of child labour are notorious. The Minister should not allow himself to be impressed easily by the statements made in regard to Donegal. In many parts of Donegal children are hired out as early as the age of eight, and evidence was given that some were hired out even at a younger age. They are hired out and remain away for six months from their homes at work, such as herding cattle, for the sake of £3.
I do not agree with the statement that Donegal in regard to child labour is in any way exceptional as compared with the rest of the Saorstát.
Thank God it is.
Donegal has to stand a great deal of abuse from people who are only casually acquainted with the conditions there. These people who speak as if they knew all about the conditions there should be careful about making statements of that character. The people there have as great a love for education as those in any other county in Ireland, and probably have a great deal more than those in many cities and towns. I think it is wise to make special provision in order to allow these children to participate in work that is suitable to them and that has to be done at certain periods of the year.
On this point I would like to refer the Minister to the admissions of Deputy White, who is from Donegal, on the last occasion on which this subject was discussed here.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move:—
In page 3, Section 4 (4), line 36, to insert before the word "The" the words "Until the year 1936."
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
In pace 3, Section 4 (5) (a), page 3, lines 47 and 48, to delete the words "along the shortest public road or path from the child's residence" and substitute the words "from the child's residence along the shortest way lawfully and conveniently available for him," and in line 50 to delete the words "from the child's residence."
This is to meet an amendment previously moved by Deputy Heffernan. I think, upon consideration, that this is the best way in which the situation would be met. I think that Deputy O'Connell had some objection to Deputy Heffernan's views on the matter. The amendment will, I think, meet Deputy Heffernan's views and also Deputy O'Connell's objection. It will also meet what we want to achieve in this particular section.
What is the force of the word "conveniently"?
What is the trouble?
The trouble is that it might be argued that it was a convenient way, if a boy had to cross a rough stile.
From many points of view a way might be inconvenient and might be extremely difficult. A short way, for instance, might be over a mountain. That might be within the requisite two miles, but it could hardly be said that a person was bound to measure the distance from the house to the school by a way leading over a steep mountain.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
In page 4, Section 6 (2), line 22, after the word "writing," to insert the words "or in person."
This amendment is to meet the case of those people to whom Deputy Good is continually referring, namely, illiterates— those who are not able to write, or who have difficulty in writing.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
In page 4, Section 6, to add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(4) The parent of a child to whom this Act applies may transfer the child from one national school to another national school at any time either with the consent of the Minister or when the transfer is made because of a change of the ordinary residence of a child, but in any other case a child to whom this Act applies shall only be transferred from one national school to another national school on one of the following days, that is to say, the 1st day of January, the 1st day of April, the 1st day of July, or the 1st day of October."
This is a re-drafting of an amendment, the principle of which I accepted, from Deputy O'Connell on the last occasion.
There is a matter that struck me since that, and perhaps the Minister might give it some thought. The amendment states that the child shall only be transferred from one national school to another national school on certain days. What happens if the school is not open on one of these particular days?
The transfer of the pupil takes place on that day.
It may be argued that if a child is not transferred, say, on the 1st January, when there is no school, the teacher could not admit him afterwards. Perhaps something could be put in so as to indicate that what is intended is the first day on which the school is open.
I will consider that further between this and the next stage. The 1st April, for instance, may fall on a Sunday or some other day on which there is no school.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
In page 4, Section 7 (3), lines 48 to 51, to delete all from the words "This section," line 48, to the words "apply to or" in line 51, and substitute the words "Regulations made under this section shall not prevent any child who immediately before the commencement of this Act is in lawful employment from continuing in such employment or."
This amendment is intended to meet the stylistic objections which Deputy Thrift raised the other day.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
In page 4, Section 7, to add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(4) Every regulation made 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 twentyone days on which that House has sat annulling such regulation such regulation shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under such regulation."
This is to meet Deputy Mulcahy's point.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
In pages 5 and 6, Section 10, to delete sub-sections (2) to (6) and substitute seven new sub-sections as follows:—
"(2) In every school attendance area in the said county boroughs and urban districts there shall be a school attendance committee and 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 said first school attendance committee until the time prescribed by the Minister under this section for the commencement of the term of office of their successors.
(3) The members of each school attendance committee in the said school attendance areas (other than the members of the first school attendance committee and members appointed to fill casual vacancies) shall be appointed triennially at such times as shall be prescribed by the Minister under this section and shall (unless they previously die or resign) hold office for three years from the time prescribed by the Minister under this section for the commencement of their term of office.
(4) Every school attendance committee (other than the first school attendance committee) in each of the said school attendance areas shall, if a Juvenile Advisory Committee established by or under the control of the Minister for Industry and Commerce exists in the school attendance area at the time of a triennial appointment of members, consist of eleven members during the succeeding triennial period, and shall, if no such Juvenile Advisory Committee exists in the area at the time of such triennial appointment, consist of ten members during the succeeding triennial period.
(5) Of the members of a school attendance committee appointed under this section, each one of five members shall, so far as such persons are available, be either a manager or a patron of a national or other suitable school in the school attendance area, and one other member shall be a teacher in a national or other suitable school in the school attendance area, and, when the committee consists of eleven members, one other member shall be a member of the Juvenile Advisory Committee in the school attendance area.
(6) Five members of every school attendance committee appointed under this section shall be appointed by the Minister, and at least one of the members so appointed shall be a teacher in a national or other suitable school in the school attendance area.
(7) When a school attendance committee appointed under this section consists of ten members, five of such members shall be appointed by the council of the county borough or urban district in which the school attendance area is situated, of which five members one at least shall be a manager or a patron of a national or other suitable school in the school attendance area, and when the school attendance committee consists of eleven members six of such members shall be appointed by the said council, of which six members one at least shall be such manager or patron as aforesaid and one other shall be a member of the Juvenile Advisory Committee in the school attendance area.
(8) 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 of commencement of the period of office of the members of such committees, 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 of accounts of such committees.
This is an effort to introduce a slight change in the section in order to meet the point raised by Deputy O'Connell on the last day. I suggested that at least one teacher should be appointed by the local authority, and he said: "Why not by the Minister?" I have accepted that particular point of view. This is a rather long and complicated amendment, and as we were changing as regards that particular point of view I thought it well to make other changes. As we know definitely, at least I hope we do, what school attendance committees are to continue in force, I thought it well to define that the normal number of a committee would be ten, and in order to provide for a member of the new body to which we are giving representation, namely, the Juvenile Advisory Committee, I have increased the number to eleven in those districts where there is such a Juvenile Advisory Committee.
The amendment refers to the teacher of a national "or other suitable" school. I do not think that there is any necessity to put in that. "Other suitable school" in this connection would, I take it, be something in the nature of a private school. The number of these schools is very few. I do not know that the people who conduct such schools will be particularly interested in this matter, and I do not think that there is any case for including such schools in this particular connection.
That is actually in the Bill so far as compulsory school attendance is concerned, and it applies to such schools as well as to others. There is in reality no reason for excluding them.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
In page 6, Section 11, to delete sub-section (2) and substitute a new sub-section as follows:—
"(2) For the purposes of Part IV. of the Local Government Act, 1925 (No. 5 of 1925) (which relates to the superannuation of the officers of a local body), every school attendance committee shall be deemed to be a committee of a local authority and to be a local body within the meaning of the said Part IV. of the said Act, and the provisions of the said Part IV. shall in so far as the same are applicable apply to a school attendance committee and their officers in like manner as they apply to a committee of a local authority and their officers subject to the following modifications, that is to say:
(a) the grant by a school attendance committee of any allowance or gratuity shall be subject to the approval of the council of the county borough or urban district by which the expenses of such school attendance committee are defrayed; and
(b) in the case of an officer of a school attendance committee appointed under the Irish Education Act, 1892, who becomes an officer of a school attendance committee under this Act, such officer's service under the former committee shall be reckoned as service under the latter committee."
The Dáil may remember that after a certain amount of debate on the last occasion the principle of superannuation was accepted for the officers of such school attendance committees as remain in force after the passing of the Act. I accepted the principle and promised to bring forward at this stage a redraft of the amendment put forward by Deputy Doyle. This amendment is the redrafted form.
Amendment put and agreed to.
In the absence of Deputy Good I move:—
In page 6, Section 12, before the word "every," line 48, to insert the words "subject to the approval of the council of the county borough or urban district and with the sanction of the Minister."
I suggest to the Minister that this is a necessary amendment, and that having definitely given school attendance officers pensionable rights and having rightly done so, the local authority should have some say in the question of the appointment of school attendance officers. I think that was put forward by the Minister himself when he said that the acceptance of Deputy Doyle's amendment was conditional upon the assumption that school attendance officers were to be appointed in the future on certain conditions as to age limits and qualifications. The amendment, so far as I understand it, requires that the approval of the local authority should be given to the appointment of school attendance officers.
The officers of school attendance committees are pensionable and the only change that this particular amendment proposes to make is that the school attendance committee can turn their secretary, who is an officer, into a school attendance officer, but both the officer and the school attendance officer are pensionable. A secretary, for instance, would be pensionable. I think the school attendance officer and the secretary would be normal officers. Whether there is any necessity for preventing a school attendance committee transforming their secretary into a school attendance officer, or whether it is necessary to get the sanction of the local council or the Minister, is a matter for debate, and I would like to have the views of Deputies upon it.
My view is that it is desirable that the school attendance committee should be under some control by the council. It is an organ of the local authority and up to the present the local authority has been strongly represented on it. I think the amendment which we have just accepted, and rightly accepted, will rather reduce the representation of the local authority. I think that the proceedings of the school attendance committee should be liable to be reviewed and approved by the local authority. It only refers to a comparatively small number of cases in which the committees continue. I think it is desirable that the link with the local authority should be close, and by giving this form of control which Deputy Good proposes the proceedings would be liable to their approval. I would like the Minister to consider the matter.
This amendment as it stands would give the committee power to appoint a person to a pensionable position. It seems to me, if a person is to be appointed to a pensionable position, whether under a local authority or otherwise, that the authority of the local body, or the Minister, for such appointment is desirable.
I, too, support the proposition in the amendment, because I see that the committee is to consist of one half nominees of the local council and one half to be appointed by the Minister. Officers of that committee should be, especially if they are to become a charge at all upon the local authority, sanctioned by the local authority, which is the elected body, and not by the appointed body. I think that that is a reasonable claim to make on behalf of the elected local authority.
I am sorry that Deputy Good is not here to support his own amendment. I know that he is a very enthusiastic and hard-working member of an urban council, and I think his views might be expressed by saying that the urban council, or the local body, being the payers, are responsible largely for the money, and that they should have some say in the control. There is nothing very deep in the amendment beyond the argument put forward that the local authorities should be consulted in connection with these appointments.
And the Minister.
And the Minister.
I have really no objection to the amendment, but I cannot follow the argument about the pensionability, if I might coin the word. The section as it stands does not give power to the committee to appoint anybody they like as school attendance officer. It gives them power to appoint one of their officers as an attendance officer, and that officer is already a pensionable officer.
May he not have extra pay for this extra work?
That depends. But in that connection he would be combining the positions of, say, secretary and school attendance officer and get pay for both. That is certainly a consideration. I have no objection to the amendment. Subject to having it redrafted, I am quite ready to accept it.
Does the Minister not think that it would be very undesirable for an officer of a council to get an appointment outside without consulting the council?
I might point out that Section 11 provides that the school attendance committee may, subject to the approval of the council of the county borough or urban district, make general appointments. We are only dealing with the case where the attendance committee may appoint one of its officers to be a school attendance officer, and in effect that is really another appointment. I think to make it run with Section 11 that the Minister might put that in.
I have no objection whatsover to accepting the amendment, especially after the point of view urged by Deputy Thrift. If it is withdrawn, I will bring it on again on the Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move:—
In page 6, Section 13 (1), line 67, to delete the words "poor rate" and substitute the words "like rate as that out of which the expenses of a school attendance committee appointed under the Irish Education Act, 1892, were defrayed under section 74 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898."
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
In page 7, Section 14, before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
"(2) Whenever the Minister could under the foregoing sub-section dissolve a school attendance committee he may, in lieu of dissolving such committee and making the consequential provisions mentioned in the foregoing sub-section, by order remove from such committee all or any of the members thereof, and whenever any such order is made the vacancies on such committee caused by such removal shall be deemed to be casual vacancies and shall be filled accordingly."
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
In pages 7 and 8, Section 14 (3), to delete paragraph (c) and substitute two new paragraphs as follows:
"(c) the officers of the dissolved committee or removed supervisor (as the case may be) shall be deemed to have been removed by virtue of such order from office and the council to whom the moneys of such dissolved committee or removed supervisor are transferred:—
(i) shall have in respect of the pensionable officers of such dissolved committee or removed supervisor the like powers of superannuation as are conferred by this Act on a school attendance committee, in respect of the officers of such committee, and
(ii) shall pay to the non-pensionable officers of such dissolved committee or removed supervisor 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 the salary of which the officer was in receipt at the time of the dissolution of the committee or removal of the supervisor (as the case may be);
"(d) all expenses incurred by a council in pursuance of this sub-section shall be defrayed out of the rate or fund out of which the expenses of a school attendance committee are to be defrayed under this Act."
On the question of procedure I do not know how this will be dealt with. I might point out that there is another amendment later, No. 27, dealing with this matter. This is a generous provision in comparison with what is to be found in, say, the Civil Service on similar occasions. If we propose to make any modification in connection with No. 27, I suppose a similar modification would apply here. The only question is whether we should discuss it on this or on Amendment No. 27.
This is only a matter of procedure. Would it be possible to discuss No. 27 at this stage? I do not know that it would, but I think that if we do pass No. 19 we should do so only on the understanding that whatever decision is come to on Amendment No. 27 will apply to this.
And also, I suggest, No. 28. I think as it is in order—I cannot quote the Standing Order at the moment—to postpone the consideration of any particular portion of a Bill until some other portion has been considered, that we should postpone consideration of Amendment 19 until Amendments 27 and 28 have been considered.
Amendment 19 postponed.
I move:—
In page 8, Section 14, to add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(4) Whenever a school attendance committee appointed under the Irish Education Act, 1892, which should under this Act become the first school attendance committee of a school attendance area is at the commencement of this Act either not in existence or not properly constituted, such first school attendance committee shall for the purposes of this section be deemed to have come into existence under this Act and may be deemed by the Minister at any time after the passing of this Act not to be discharging its duties under this Act duly and effectually and may be dissolved under this section accordingly."
The purpose of this is quite clear from its wording, I trust. Where there is not a school attendance committee, as there is not, for instance, in the scheduled areas that we have in the Bill—the City of Limerick is one of them—there is no provision in the Bill to deal with the situation. The Gárda Síochána are not in a position to take over the administration of the School Attendance Bill in that particular area. The alternative for that was to schedule it, and then the position would be that there would be a school attendance committee there. If that did not work satisfactorily it could be dissolved and a supervisor appointed in its place. It did seem absurd, as there was clear evidence that Limerick was not a place in which to establish a school attendance committee, to set up a committee there in order to dissolve it and to put a supervisor in its place. Consequently the amendment is introduced to meet that situation.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
In page 8, before Section 16 to insert a new section as follows:—
"Whenever a child to whom this Act applies is for the time being attending a national or other suitable school in accordance with this Act but is absent from such school on any day or days on which he should under this Act attend such school, his parent shall as soon as possible and in any event not later than the third day after the day or the first of the days (as the case may be) of such absence communicate in writing or in person to the principal teacher of such school the cause of such absence."
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
In page 8, Section 16, at the end of sub-section (1), to add a new paragraph as follows:—
"and
(c) informing him that if within three months after such proceedings he again fails to comply with this Act further proceedings may be instituted against him without previous warning."
Is not three months rather a long period? Perhaps the Minister would say something about that.
Deputy Thrift proposed that there should be no limitation whatsoever, and I thought that three months was reasonable, that is, if a parent was guilty of an offence and if within three months he is again guilty it would be unnecessary to warn him a second time. Does Deputy Mulcahy suggest that a warning should be given the second time within three months?
No, but if a parent is proceeded against and he takes no notice of the order, it would be rather unfair to the child that no further steps should be taken for three months.
That is not it. No further warning would be given to the parent that he will be proceeded against. It was really to secure quickness of execution that Deputy Thrift put down his amendment, so that the step of giving the parent warning a second time would be eliminated. I think that Deputy Thrift and Deputy Mulcahy are quite at one on the point.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
In page 8, Section 16, before sub-section (3) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
"(3) Whenever a parent within three months after being convicted of an offence under this section, fails without reasonable excuse to cause his child in respect of whom he was so convicted to attend school in accordance with this Act, such parent shall, unless the child has ceased to be a child to whom this Act applies, be guilty of an offence under this section (which shall for the purposes of this section be deemed to be a second offence under this section) and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding forty shillings."
I think that this is more or less consequential on Deputy Thrift's amendment. Deputies will remember that we excluded the clause the last time for a certain purpose, and I think we excluded more than we intended to exclude. Deputy Thrift's amendment was confined to telling the parent that no further notice will be given. We will now have to proceed without further notice.
I am very glad to see that the Minister has put down this amendment. It is quite true that it is necessary to supplement mine.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
In page 9, Section 17, to add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(6) A prosecution for an offence under this Act may in a school attendance area situate in a county borough or urban district mentioned in the Schedule to this Act, be prosecuted at the suit of any school attendance officer in the area as prosecutor, and may in any other school attendance area, be prosecuted at the suit of the enforcing authority of the area as prosecutor."
It was proposed on the last occasion by Deputy Connor Hogan, on behalf of Deputy Heffernan, that the school attendance officer, or the enforcing authority, should have power to appear and conduct the prosecution—that is, that a solicitor need not be employed. The amendment is put down with that end in view. It seems quite reasonable.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
In page 10, Section 18 (2), lines 7 and 8, to delete the words "such fee as shall be fixed by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health" and substitute the words "a fee of sixpence."
Amendment put and agreed to.
On behalf of Deputy Good I move:—
In page 11, Section 23, to add at end of sub-section (2) a new paragraph as follows:—
(f) appoint Advisory Committees in such places and for such periods as the Minister may think necessary."
This is a purely permissive amendment. It allows the Minister to appoint advisory committees if and when he thinks fit. He need not appoint them if he does not think fit. It can do no harm and may be useful.
Will Deputy Cooper tell me what he means by an advisory committee? For what purpose?
I am afraid that the Minister will have to wait for Deputy Good's return. But in view of the fact that this is not compulsory, but that it will give him power to appoint them if he thinks fit, that he can then analyse the nature of these advisory committees and discover their purpose, I think he might accept the amendment.
Is there not a point in this that the Minister would like to be advised in regard to the desirability of using his powers regarding extending the age, and so on? Possibly that is intended, and I think it might be a desirable thing.
I am quite sure that Deputy Good recognises the willingness of the Minister always to take advice in providing the machinery for him to get that advice from a good source.
If I was not aware that Deputy Good had down another amendment on the last stage that was very different in its scope so far as words went, but the purpose of which, possibly, was quite the same as this and the purpose of which was quite outside the scope of the Bill, I might look at this more favourably. As Deputy Good has now returned, perhaps he could explain what he means. We are in the difficulty, Deputy Good, that Deputy Cooper, in your absence, moved your amendment, but was unable to tell us what you meant by it.
I was anxious that those in the different areas should be consulted on matters affecting their areas. It was pointed out earlier, in discussions on the Bill, that conditions are not identical in all areas. In order that the Minister might be made aware of the circumstances in the various areas, I am anxious that he should have this power of calling advisory committees into existence for such periods as he may consider necessary. It is not essential, I think, that these committees should have anything of a permanent character about them, except that in some areas the Minister came to the conclusion it would be well to have them made permanent.
Would the Deputy indicate on what matters the Minister should seek the advice of these committees?
There would be many matters, but it is hard to say what they are at the moment.
That is my difficulty.
In connection with some of the proposals that we have had under consideration in relation to this Bill it may be desirable, in certain circumstances, to have advisory committees set up. This evening, for instance, we discussed the employment of child labour. That is a matter, for instance, that might come before an Advisory Committee, especially in certain areas where a distinction may be finely drawn as to whether it is an agricultural or industrial area. If it is the former, the section would operate, and if an industrial area the section would not operate. That is a matter, I think, on which it would be well to consult local interests. I am afraid that one of the weaknesses in this measure is that it possibly puts too much into the hands of the Minister, and too little on the particular areas. My experience of the working of the Technical Instruction Act was this: that one of the outstanding advantages of that Act over our Education Act, which applied to primary education, was that under it you had consultations with the areas concerned. The Minister in that instance derived considerable assistance from the local people as to the various problems that arose from time to time.
I think there is a good deal in this amendment by Deputy Good that is worthy of consideration. It might be a useful amendment to adopt, especially as there is to be no compulsion on the Minister to appoint advisory committees. I take it that the intention of Deputy Good is that these advisory committees should be set up principally in regard to the powers conferred on the Minister under the new Section 23.
Quite so.
That section gives power to the Minister to apply the Act in certain places and at certain times, and to a certain extent within the limit of fourteen to sixteen years of age. In connection with that, I can conceive quite a number of things on which it might be well for the Minister to get the advice of local committees. There would, for instance, be such questions as the accommodation available, how best to make use of it, staff arrangements and so on. I think if these advisory committees were set up that very useful work might be found for them. They might serve, if I might put it so, as a kind of useful buffer for the Minister. If they made recommendations it might be useful for the Minister to be able to fall back on them, rather than to be put in the position of bearing all the odium of doing a thing himself. It might be well for the Minister to have local bodies to consult before putting into operation all the powers given to him under this new Section 23.
I desire to support, very strongly, the amendment moved by Deputy Good. If the amendment did nothing more than make local areas recognise their responsibilities in connection with education, it would, in my opinion, have served a very useful purpose. In educational matters there is a big difference as to the systems that obtain here and on the other side of the water. Here the Minister and his Department exercise a more or less bureaucratic control over education, whereas on the other side the local authorities, to the extent of very considerable contributions, take a great interest in their schools and in the educational problems of their district. If Deputy Good's amendment did nothing more than create a local interest in education, then it would have done a very good work.
Apart from Deputy Hewat's reasons I am afraid I cannot accept this amendment. Either this Advisory Committee is for the purpose of this particular Bill, that is, securing the attendance of the children where the Bill operates, or it is for some other purpose. Having listened to a number of speeches, I should say it may be for the purpose of helping the attendance of children at school, but it is much more likely to be for some other purpose outside the scope of this particular Bill. If the amendment is meant to deal with school attendance, which is the purpose of this Bill, then you are up against the proposition that was discussed for a short time on the last occasion, of divided authority as between the Civic Guard and the School Advisory Committee. If you are to have an Advisory Committee under this Bill, its principal purpose, I take it, would be to enforce the Act and to give advice on that. You would, therefore, have the Civic Guard as an enforcing authority on the one hand, and this advisory body, perhaps running counter to the actions of the Civic Guard, on the other hand. I think that would make for maladministration of the Act, and therefore if the amendment is meant to achieve something that is within the scope of the Bill, I think it is objectionable from the point of view I have urged. If it is meant to achieve something altogether outside the scope of the Bill, then I feel I must reject it. As regards the point made about the exercise of the powers given to the Minister under the new Section 23, I think it would be less cumbersome and would lead to less trouble to get all the local information required indirectly, instead of directly through an Advisory Committee, seeing that the Minister himself will be the person to appoint this particular committee. I am sorry I cannot accept the amendment.
I would like to point out to the Minister that the powers given in the new Section 23 are brought into existence by reason of the extension of Section 2. The difficulties that arose under Section 2 whereby we extended the school age from 14 to 16 were of such a character that certain powers had to be given to the Minister. The Minister pointed out, and we all agreed, that for obvious reasons it would be inadvisable to put these powers into force immediately. That, of course, would have happened if we had incorporated the amendment as originally proposed in the Bill. When the matter was under consideration the question of school buildings was discussed, whether the schools were capable of extension and the number of scholars that they could accommodate. It occurred to me that the question of encouraging employment in a particular area by exemption, say, from attendance at schools of certain boys and girls who were in employment, and the arrangement, say, of continuation classes in the evening, were all matters that might engage the attention of local committees. There is no reason, simply because you set up an Advisory Committee in one area, that you should set it up in every area. I suggest to the Minister that he is more likely to achieve good results in the matter of education by co-operating with the local people. He is acting apart from them altogether through his Department. There is nothing mandatory at all in this amendment. It is only where it is thought desirable that advisory committees are to be set up.
The Minister stated that if these committees were set up they would be brought into conflict with the Civic Guard. There would be no question of that at all, because the Civic Guard have certain duties to discharge and there would be no clashing between them and the local committees. The amendment suggests, in connection with the extensions under Section 2, that before they can be put into full operation the local committees should be consulted. These are matters that cannot affect the Civic Guard. If there was any danger of a clashing between the local advisory committees and the Civic Guard the Minister would have the power to say to the local committee that he was very much obliged to them for the assistance they had given, that he had the information he wanted, and that their duties were at an end. I think the Minister has taken a different view altogether of the functions of these advisory committees to that which I hold. I do not see any possibility of a conflict between them and the Civic Guard.
The first part of the Minister's argument was without any force in respect of this amendment and without any application to it. Deputy Good has already disposed of that. As I understand, the object of these advisory committees would not be to secure attendance at school. You have the enforcing authority, as set out in the Bill, to do that. It might be necessary to relate definitely the advisory committee to Section 23. But I do say that such local inquiries as the Minister can make through his inspectors or officers will not meet the position fully, because it will not bring together the conflicting interests in a particular area. The object of Section 23 is to bring the children between 14 years and 16 years into school and to give them a particular type of education. It may not, and I hope will not, be confined to the national school programme. There may be different types of schools in the locality. You may have a technical school or an agricultural school, or it may be necessary to set up in some central area, where there are facilities, schools with higher "tops." It may be necessary to set up a school in a central area which will be entirely confined to children of these ages, and I foresee that all this will lead to conflicting interests. If there were any way by which you could bring together these conflicting interests, it would be helpful. If an inspector goes into an area to make inquiries, he may find that the authorities in charge of one school do not want this departure at all, because it is going to upset their particular arrangements. The teachers of a particular area may not want it, because it is going to draw children over 14, who are attending their school, away to some other school. They will object to it, and the inspector will be confronted with difficulties of all kinds. We know how difficult it is to make changes. We all naturally want to go along as we have been going, because we do not know what danger there is in new arrangements or how it will affect our own case. There will be all kinds of difficulties.
I believe it would be extremely helpful to the Minister if he could set up, under this amendment, a committee which would give representation to all the interests that he thought ought to be represented—that would bring together all those interested in education in the area. The value of such an arrangement would be that it would bring all those interested in education face to face in one room. The Minister's representative could say: "Here is a problem which we have to settle in your own area; could you give me any idea as to how it should be met?" That would be the value of that arrangement, as against the sending in of an officer to make inquiries. He may make inquiries from different people and get different views from practically everybody. One man will have one objection and another man will have another objection. It is only when all are brought together that you will arrive at the common denominator of the objections. I think it would be possible to get a working arrangement in that way which you would not be able to get by the sending of an officer into an area to make inquiries.
Many inquiries can be undoubtedly made by the Minister. If there is any question as to seeking further information of the kind suggested by Deputies Good and O'Connell—to what extent and with what modifications Clause 23 might be made operative in a certain district—there is nothing to prevent the Minister appointing a Commission ad hoc. But if you definitely state in the Act that there is to be an advisory committee, even with the saving clause "for such purposes as the Minister may think necessary," you are undoubtedly setting up a body that will ultimately claim to be more than an advisory body. Human nature being what it is, this advisory committee will not confine itself to the special purpose for which it is set up. If it is found necessary to consult local opinion— not merely local opinion sectionally but local opinion collectively—there is nothing to prevent the Minister setting up a local commission ad hoc and asking them to investigate the matter. From that point of view, the amendment gives no more power to the Minister than he has already, and it has, from my point of view, very objectionable features.
I am sorry the Minister cannot see his way to accept this amendment. I feel so strongly about the matter that I shall have to press for a division.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá—24. Níl—39.
Tá
- Seán Buitléir.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- John Good.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Patrick J. Mulvany.
- James Sproule Myles.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- William Hewat.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
- Nicholas Wall.
Níl
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Thomas Bolger.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí Dhrisceóil.
- James Dwyer.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- Patrick Leonard.
- Liam Mac Cosgair.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Eoin Mac Néill.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Martin M. Nally.
- John T. Nolan.
- Michael K. Noonan.
- William Norton.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Criostóir O Broin.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Parthalán O Conchubhair. Máirtin O Conalláin.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Andrew O'Shaughnessy.
- Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
- Seán Príomhdhall.
Tellers—Tá: Deputies Dolan and Sears. Níl: Deputies Good and T. O'Connell.
Amendment declared lost.
I move Amendment 27:
In page 11, section 25, sub-section (4), line 49, to delete all the words after the word "Act" and substitute therefor the words "as compensation a sum equal to in the case of any particular officer one-sixth of the annual salary and emoluments of which he was in receipt on the first day of November, 1925, for each completed year of service."
This amendment, I submit, makes a very moderate demand on behalf of the officers. It only proposes to give them bare justice. As Deputies will notice, it provides for one-sixth of the annual salary and emoluments for each year of completed service. The arguments in favour of it are perfectly obvious. I have in mind some officers who have given many years' service, and it is suggested in the section that they are to be disposed of with some amount, not exceeding in any case one year's salary. That point should be emphasised. In my amendment it is proposed to give them one-sixth of one year's salary for each year's service. I think that is a reasonable proposal and one that the Minister cannot advance any argument against.
We put down the provision in the Bill because we were under the impression, taking similar officers, for instance, in Government employment who had non-pensionable positions, that, on the whole, it was a generous provision. I have made inquiries as to the procedure and practice, for instance, in the case of a servant of the Government who had an office that did not carry a pension, and I was told that, roughly speaking, the average treatment when the office was abolished, was to give one week's salary for each year's service. Therefore, if a person had served, say, 30 years, which is, I think, the limit for any of the officers we are now considering, 30 weeks' salary—not one year's salary—would be the compensation given the officer.
Deputies will remember that we were dealing with another matter, the question of pensions for officers of School Attendance Committees, and that the argument I laid most stress on —I will not say it was the only argument I used—was the advantage, from the point of view of education, of having a pensionable officer. This would save a tender-hearted Committee from the temptation of keeping on a man long beyond the usual period. We would also remove the temptation from the individual school attendance officer to seek other employment, and to eke out the salary he was getting which, in itself, would not make provision for his old age. There is another consideration that, I think, might be borne in mind, and that is, that in the particular case referred to we were dealing with a position in which the school attendance officers, practically, made it their sole source of revenue. In the case of officers referred to by Deputy Hogan, I wonder if their sole source of revenue is derived from the salaries they get as school attendance officers.
That is a point for me.
That is, simply, they have their ordinary means of livelihood, and, as a kind of side avocation, they attend to school attendance. A paper was circulated some time ago about the accuracy of the returns given here. For the accuracy of the returns I can accept no responsibility. Probably, on the whole, they were correct. They were supplied by the various School Attendance Committees. Some are part-time and some are whole-time officers. For part-time officers the salary varies. Sometimes it is £6, and even lower. Sometimes it is as high as £52 per year. There are whole-time officers enjoying a salary of £35 yearly. I wonder was it seriously contended that that would be the sole source of revenue of these particular people? I think most of the arguments that apply in the case of compensation or superannuation for attendance officers that remain in the scheduled areas will not apply in this particular case. As to what the actual cost would be, if you take the whole country, seeing the extent of it, perhaps it would not be very exorbitant. It might not appear very exorbitant, if you give them, say, one in every fifteen years. Taking that as a basis, you can calculate it by multiplying any sum required by 2½ or 3. For whole-time officers appointed under the Education Act, if you give them compensation of one year's salary for every fifteen years service, in a town like Carlow it would be £63; Drogheda, £116; Dundalk, £166; and Tralee, £203. The total for whole-time officers of the urban areas would be £953 on that scale. In the rural areas it would be £2,118, making a total for whole-time officers of £3,000. If you calculate for the part-time officers in the urban areas, giving one year's salary for every fifteen years' service, the figures would be £700, and in the rural areas £1,400. If you add these together, whole-time and part-time officers in urban and rural areas outside the scheduled districts, giving one year's salary for every fifteen years' service, the total would be about £5,000. I had hoped that Deputies would have expressed their views on this. Deputy Hogan is the only Deputy who has spoken on the question so far. I would like to hear the views of other Deputies. I have given them certain facts from which perhaps they may be able to form a conclusion as to what, on the whole, is just. As I said, we put down one year's salary in the Bill because, making comparison for their services, that seemed not altogether unreasonable. In no case were we anxious to add to the burdens of the local authorities at this particular time.
I think the amendment is reasonable, considering the duties those officers had to perform in the past. I know officers in my own county to have given good service in the cause of education, and I think one-sixth of the yearly salary is not too much as compensation. That would mean every school attendance officer having six years' service would get one year's salary on the abolition of his office.
I should like to use some of the Minister's own arguments in support of my amendment. He tells us we are not to assume these officers are whole-time officers and are entirely dependent on their salaries for their living. That is exactly what a good many of them are. The Minister makes a comparison between those officers with small salaries and other officers, but he does not tell us the salaries of the other officers to whom the same terms are given. He made a comparison with officers in other departments who are not pensionable, and he says "we propose to treat school attendance officers on the same basis." I will take the Minister's own figures. He stated fifty-two in one and six in another case. Let us strike an average and say twenty-nine. I suggest that is a fair comparison with the salaries the other people get? He has made a comparison without any reference whatsoever to their salaries. He submits five thousand pounds to be the cost.
Not on the Deputy's proposal. It will be the cost of his proposal multiplied by two and a half at all events.
Mr. HOGAN
He suggested that is an exorbitant sum. That reminds me of the old lady who saw Niagara for the first time and who, turning to her husband, said: "Oh, I remember, I left the tap turned on at home." If that is the fashion in which the Minister deals with men who gave valuable service to the State, I think it is a niggardly way to deal with the matter, inasmuch as thousands have been given in other cases where less valuable services were given.
Although those officers are not whole-time officers, still a great many of them had given very long service, and I think in the case of some women who were attendance officers, the service in their case has been practically whole-time. The country cannot afford to give pensions all round. Still, when an office is taken compulsorily away, I think the people from whom these offices are taken should be treated as fairly as we can afford. As the amount concerned is not very large, I suggest to the Minister he should consider giving one year for every ten years' service. Some of them have served thirty years. It is a sort of compromise between one year for every fifteen and one for every six, and would not make a very great difference.
I expected some assistance from the House. When local government matters are considered here, we get a great deal of assistance. Up to the present I have got no view except that six times the salary ought to be granted. Deputy Hogan says: "What about a comparison of the salaries people, whom I mentioned, enjoyed." They were whole-time officers. The six pounds represents not a very considerable part of their means of livelihood. In the case I referred to it represented a person's sole means of livelihood. If the House is agreeable, I have no objection to saying one year in every twelve.
Make it ten.
That would be three years' salary, and in the case of some of the towns mentioned, I think the burden might come on them.
How many are there with thirty years' service?
Deputy Hogan is right in one point. It does not follow that everyone whose position is abolished will get the maximum even as it stood. The idea was that it would range, according to the number of years' service, from one years' salary to three months' salary. If the Deputy would accept the one in twelve I should be quite ready to consider it. I will consider, between now and the Report Stage, whether it shall be one in ten or one in twelve.
I believe there is a good deal of equity in Deputy Hogan's amendment because, after all, a few days ago we made the office pensionable for the whole-time officers. They are not losing their positions as the officers from the rural districts and the urban districts of the country are. I say that there is a good deal of equity in this, considering the action of the Dáil the other day, by which the whole-time officers who are retaining their positions are to have pensions.
I ask the leave of the Dáil to withdraw the amendment. I am doing so on the Minister's promise.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move:—
In page 11, section 25 (4), line 52, to delete all words after the words "Minister for Education."
I could not support Deputy Hogan's amendment, because it seems to me too detailed. My amendment is intended to give very much wider discretion to the Minister for Local Government and to the Minister for Education than they have in the Bill at present, by removing the limit of one year's salary. I see no reason why we should tie the Minister down in this way. They should have regard to the circumstances of the case. The Minister told us that there are some people who are doing this work for a nominal salary. I more or less inferred that it was a hobby with them and that they took the small amount to pay for shoe leather. But there is no doubt but this fixed maximum would work unfairly now. There are two cases in my own constituency. In Balbriggan there is a whole-time officer who is secretary of the school attendance committee also. He, or, it may be, she has been twenty-four and a half years doing the job. The maximum amount that that officer could get is £55. On the other hand, in South Dublin there is a secretary of a school attendance committee who also acts as a whole-time school attendance officer. He has occupied the position four months, and yet that officer can get £100.
Not on the amendment that we have been considering.
I am talking about the Bill as it stands, and not on the improvements the Minister is borrowing from the Labour Party. I am talking about the Bill as drafted and introduced. Under that Bill the officer who occupies the position for four months gets £100, and another officer who has occupied the position for 24½ years gets £55. I do not say that is a thing that would happen. I hope the Ministers would use their discretion to some extent, but it proves that cut and dried administration of this sort is not desirable. It penalises the employees of one committee, that is to say in the case of a committee that has paid lower salaries and have kept the expenses down. In the case of people who had their heart in the work and who were because of that satisfied to accept smaller salaries, the amount to be given would be definitely smaller than that given to persons employed by committees who were prepared to spend money lavishly. My amendment simply removes the fixed limit of one year's salary. It does not necessarily involve any extra demand on the ratepayers at all. The pension would be fixed by consultation between the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Education. But it does make it possible to take into consideration the local circumstances and the local differences that would make it in some cases desirable to give a slightly larger amount than this fixed one of one year's salary.
I confess that I see a danger, or rather a difficulty, in this amendment as against the amendment suggested by Deputy Hogan. I feel that it would be more satisfactory from the point of view certainly of the Minister, if there were a definite scale put into the Bill, because if you do not put in a scale you will have all kinds of arguments put up and all kinds of pressure used and all kinds of circumstances urged as to why a particular person in a particular case should get one sum, and a particular person in another case should get another sum. I think it would be better for all concerned if it were possible, in accordance with the suggestion made by Deputy Hogan, to put a definite scale into the Bill, so that they would all know what they were entitled to normally. Of course, there would be a discretion still left to the Minister, but normally that is what they would be entitled to. I think it would be far better from the Minister's point of view, and possibly from the point of view, too, of Deputies who might be asked to make representation to the Minister. That kind of thing has been sometimes done, but if there was, in the Bill to be passed now, a scale on which the Minister would be expected to act, this would be avoided. That is what Deputy Hogan's amendment suggests. I suggest to Deputy Cooper that if the Minister accepts the suggestion of Deputy Hogan, modified as he practically promised to modify it, it will be a better arrangement than as it stands at present or as it is in this amendment.
I am inclined to agree with Deputy O'Connell that it would be very objectionable if there was not a scale. The difference between Deputy Hogan's amendment and the amendment moved by Deputy Cooper, so far as that is concerned, is whether the scale would be fixed here, or fixed by the two Ministers in individual cases. The Bill as it stands provides for a scale to be fixed. Of course, one of the first things that would be considered would be the number of years' service. If a scale were fixed I would suggest that the man who has 24½ years' service would not be in the same part of the scale as the man with four months' service. That is quite obvious. Assume that the section asks the Ministers to fix the scale, and then assume, if the Dáil can make such an assumption, that they had a minimum of commonsense, they would hardly put the man with four months' service on the same level as the man with 24½ years' service. Deputy O'Connell said there was danger, and I do not know whether he changed the word afterwards and said there was a possibility that the maximum would be one year's service. I can understand a certain anxiety on the part of Deputy O'Connell to put in some higher maximum than one year, knowing well that the maximum put in will be actually the maximum that will operate. If we fixed three years or two years maximum, the man with the longest service would practically get that amount of pension going out, and the others would be graded from him downwards. I confess I cannot see any great virtues in this, except an immense amount of trouble that would be given to the Ministers and Deputies by the loose arrangement that seems to be suggested by Deputy Cooper's amendment, but that in reality is not suggested by Deputy Cooper's amendment.
It is suggested and suggested definitely—an absolute principle. I am utterly opposed to all this trying to supply moral courage by putting restrictions in statutes. Deputies and Ministers ought summon up their moral courage and turn down indefensible demands. As it is we continually find that local authorities and Ministers and pensions boards are all hedging themselves in and saying: "You have an excellent case but it does not come within the four corners of the Act; it does not come within the provisions laid down in the statute." I think that is all wrong. We ought to begin at the top in this case. In this case it is only Deputies and Ministers who will be troubled. We ought to face that trouble and to face the very disagreeable necessity occasionally of turning down our constituents, but the evil goes the whole way through. In the Local Government Bill various provisions were put in because local authorities could not be trusted not to vote away the ratepayers' money in large sums. They have got to face the responsibility and face the ratepayers. All these artificial safeguards are like the precautions with which a doctor surrounds a sick man, and we should be recovering the health of the body corporate sufficiently to be able to get over them. All I have heard from Deputy O'Connell and the Minister convinces me all the more that I was right in putting down this amendment. I framed that amendment not from the point of view of saving Ministers trouble, which I sometimes try to do, not from the point of view of saving my mail bag from being overloaded with letters, but from the point of view that we have got to face these things out and face this responsibility and not protect ourselves by inserting restrictive clauses in statutes.
Deputy Cooper has propounded a most extraordinary doctrine. We have been discussing supplementary estimates to-day. Why? Because it was necessary, and Deputy Cooper should know, that there should be some restriction on the expenditure of Ministers, that their moral courage was not enough restriction, that there should be some legal and statutory restriction on their power to spend money. I thought Deputy Cooper was one of the strongest exponents of that doctrine. Now I gather one of the securities the people should have is the moral courage of Ministers, Ministers who are variable. The moral courage of X to-day is of a higher grade than that of Y to-morrow or next year, and the allowances and the scales that are granted are going to vary according to the moral courage of Ministers. I was doubtful until Deputy Cooper made his last statement as to whether there was not something in his case, but now I am convinced that he is on the wrong track entirely and that there must be some check on expenditure besides the moral courage of Deputies or Ministers.
Amendment put and declared lost.
With regard to Amendment 19, whatever provision is put in—that is as to the one in twelve—the amendment under Section 25 will naturally also come into the proposed section we were discussing.
Amendment 19 put and agreed to.
I beg to move:—
In page 11, Section 25, to add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(5) All expenses incurred by a council or body in the execution of this section shall be defrayed out of the like rate or fund as that out of which the expenses of the school attendance committee were defrayed by such council or body."
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
In page 11, to delete from the Schedule, the words "the County Borough of Limerick" and "the County Borough of Waterford."
I am moving to delete these areas from the Schedule in response to demands which I have got from both of these areas and which I consider to be representative demands, in the case of Limerick especially. I understand—as a matter of fact I think the Minister said it himself a few minutes ago—that there is no school attendance committee operating in Limerick at the moment, effectively operating at any rate. I have been informed on very good authority that the Juvenile Advisory Committee which exists in Limerick has passed a resolution asking that the area should be deleted from the Schedule and that the Gárda Síochána should be the enforcing authority in Limerick. If that is the case I can see only one possible reason, which was indicated by the Minister, for the inclusion of Limerick in this Schedule. That is that the Guards are not in a position to take up this duty. Candidly I cannot conceive that that would be the position.
I do not think it will throw on the Gárda Síochána in Limerick such a very onerous duty that they would not be in a position to discharge it. I would be surprised if that were the case, and I would require very strong evidence indeed to convince me that they are not in a position in Limerick to act as enforcing authority under this Bill. As I say, that could be the only possible argument, so far as my information goes, especially in Limerick; and the same thing practically applies to Waterford, perhaps though not to the same extent, because I think there is a Committee functioning in a small way in Waterford. My information is to the effect, however, that it is felt there that the Act will not be a success unless it is administered by the Gárda. I do hope, therefore, that the Minister, in view of the facts which have come to my notice and which possibly are correct, with regard to the position of the school attendance committees especially in Limerick, will explain to us why he has excluded Waterford and Limerick from the jurisdiction of the Gárda Síochána.
I think I have on more than one occasion put forward what my position is in this matter —on the first occasion in answer to Deputy Morrissey. Our idea was to have, without any reference, as I pointed out before, as to whether in any areas, committees were good committees, indifferent committees, or bad committees, the Act administered everywhere by the Gárda. At first the Gárda thought they would not be able to undertake the administration of the Act anywhere, but then they consented to undertake the administration of the Act in most of the country. They definitely excluded areas in which they could not at present undertake the administration of the Act—what I may call the Dublin, Waterford and Limerick areas. I put it up again to them to give it their full consideration, and they gave it very full consideration and endeavoured to see whether they could not undertake the administration of the Act in these two places. Again they were quite definite that they could not at present, at all events, undertake the administration of the Act there. That being so, there is no choice but to keep to the proposition in the Bill. That was the reason why I could not table an amendment to exclude Limerick and Waterford, however much I might desire to exclude both of these cities. It was especially desirable in the case of Limerick, where there is no committee in existence, and where there is no prospect, as I know, of getting a good committee. As the Dáil knows, I have already provided measures to deal with that case. There will be no necessity to call a committee into existence there. We will be able to deal with Limerick as we would with the scheduled areas where we have to abolish committees and appoint a supervisor. In Waterford the case is not so strong. There is one reason why we cannot exclude Waterford and Limerick from the schedule, but that is a sufficient reason so far as I am concerned why we cannot thrust that over on the Gárda at present.
Is it possible for the Minister to state the reason why the Gárda cannot administer the Act?
I am afraid that I could not state it. There is a strain on the Gárda, and it was definitely put up to them, and they decided it was outside their resources at the moment.
They were very clear on the point. There was no hesitation. They considered it again at my suggestion—carefully and sympathetically considered it— and made every effort to see if they could administer the Act in those two places. Again the answer was that they could not. The situation at present did not allow them to undertake the administration in those places. If the Committee in Waterford does not administer the Act properly we have the same remedy that we have in the case of Limerick. I suggest that Deputy O'Connell might be satisfied with that explanation.
I am not by any means sorry that the Deputy moved this amendment, apart from the fact that I am unable to accept it, because whatever may be said about the possibility or the advisability of not having the Gárdaí administer the Act in Waterford or Limerick, there can be no excuse for extending the areas which are not to be administered by the Gárdaí as suggested in other amendments. Our idea is, wherever the Gárdaí are willing to undertake it, to have this Act administered by them. As I said already, there is no slur on any of the committees who are at present doing excellent work. There is no suggestion that these committees are not hard-working, but for a variety of reasons, especially for the sake of uniformity, we should prefer to have the administration through the Gárdaí. That is what we are aiming to achieve; that is what we have achieved in the country outside the scheduled areas.
If the Minister takes up the position that he has put it definitely to the Gárdaí to take on the work and they say that they are not in a position to do it, it would be quite impossible to force the matter on them. Though it might be done, it would be quite inadvisable to do it, because if they were forced to undertake it against their will, they would not have very much heart in their work. But I must honestly express surprise that that is the state of affairs. I am quite prepared to accept it, but I am not very strongly convinced on the matter. However, I do hope that the matter will not be lost sight of, and that in the near future it will be put up to them again whether it would not be possible for them to undertake the duties in those two areas especially. I suppose there is nothing to be done in these circumstances except to withdraw the amendment.
I wish Deputies to realise that the Gárdaí at first were under the impression that they could not undertake the administration of the Act anywhere. They have now gone very far to meet us, and I think that should be recognised— that we should bear in mind not so much what, for the moment, they are unable to do, but what they have undertaken to do willingly, because they saw the necessity of it, although they recognised the drain that it will be on their resources.
I think the Deputy ought to recognise that in densely populated areas the imposition of a duty such as this would necessitate the employment of a much larger number of men than are available at present. The demands on the Gárdaí are very considerable, even in the rural areas, and this does place a large additional burden on them. I think it was explained here last year that one of the reasons for the delay in connection with the introduction of this Bill was this difficulty of having it administered. It is hardly necessary to point out that modern conditions have imposed a very considerable strain on the Gárdaí. In the city of Dublin fifteen years ago there was one policeman on point duty; at present there are 150. To get men to do this extra work would mean either taking men away from the duties they are employed at at present, or increasing the numbers. So that it is not that they are unwilling to take on the duty, but rather that it would be difficult to expect them to take it on in addition to the other duties in a densely populated area.
Mr. O'CONNELL
I should like to say that I recognise the benefit it would be, so far as the enforcement of the Act is concerned, if the Gárdaí undertook to enforce it. It is because I am thoroughly convinced of the beneficial effects of their administration of it in the country that I am so anxious to have those benefits extended to other areas. I quite recognise the force of the case that has been made by the President and the Minister, but I should like to say that if the Gárdaí undertook the administration in densely populated areas I believe the effect would be even greater than in the rural areas. For that reason I was wondering whether it was too late even now to put something into the Bill which would give a certain discretion to the Gárdaí, in those areas where the Act is not administered by them, to question any child found about the streets who is obviously of school-age with the object of finding out why he was not at school. Anybody who goes about our cities encounters children who should undoubtedly be at school. The school attendance officer cannot possibly deal with all of them in densely populated areas. If it were felt that the Gárdaí had power to inquire why they were not at school it might have a very beneficial effect. The Gárdaí could do very useful work in that way by reporting to the school attendance officer. I throw out that suggestion, which may be worth consideration even now.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move:—
In page 11 to add to the Schedule the words "Dalkey Urban District."
First of all, it is necessary for me to make the conventional case that the School Attendance Committee in Dalkey is an efficient one and that it is the desire of the local authority that it should be continued. School attendence in Dalkey last November varied from 84 to 88 per cent. I asked the Minister for figures with regard to some other counties, and I find that in Wexford it was 70 per cent., and in Mayo and Cavan about 68 per cent. But I realise that the Minister stated there are many efficient School Attendance Committees all over the Saorstát, and that that in itself is not a sufficient reason. The reason I move this amendment is that he has himself in the schedule exempted the urban districts of Dun Laoghaire and Blackrock which adjoin Dalkey and are absolutely similar in character to it. I find it hard to believe that the Gárdaí cannot enforce the School Attendance Act in Dun Laoghaire, but that they can enforce it in Dalkey. The townships are actually very closely connected educationally. A number of boys from Dalkey go to Dun Laoghaire every day to school and a number of girls from Dun Laoghaire go to school at the Convent in Dalkey.
It seems to me very difficult to enforce the Act when one urban district is under one system of enforcement and the other is under another system. It is very difficult from the point of view of the Gárdaí themselves. The headquarters of the Gárdaí are actually in Dun Laoghaire, and the Superintendent of the F Division in Dun Laoghaire will be enforcing with the Gárdaí one law in Dalkey and a different system altogether in Dun Laoghaire and Blackrock. Officers will be liable to be transferred from time to time and you will have officers from Dun Laoghaire coming to Dalkey who know nothing of the enforcement of this Act and who will be asked suddenly to take it up. Dalkey and Killiney will be the only parts of what is called the Metropolitan District in which the Gárdaí are called upon to enforce it and I do see great administrative difficulties from that point of view.
Another argument I should like to put very briefly is that it is very possible that in future Dalkey will be amalgamated with Dun Laoghaire and Blackrock in a coast borough. I do not want to forestall the report of the Greater Dublin Commission, but I know that a case has been made for that amalgamation and that actually a Private Bill has been deposited in the Private Bill Office to bring about that amalgamation. Surely the Minister will admit that it will be anomalous if you have a borough with one system of school attendance in one end and a different system in the remaining two-thirds.
I do not expect the Minister to accept this amendment. I have given up expecting Ministers ever to accept amendments, but I would ask the Minister if he will have a further conference with the Gárdaí on the subject with regard to the points I put forward as to enforcing from Dun Laoghaire a special system in Dalkey that is not in force in Dun Laoghaire. I think administratively there are serious difficulties in the way and I shall be glad if the Minister will examine them.
I am always rather nervous about opposing Deputy Cooper's amendments, because in nine cases out of ten I find the arguments I use can only convince him all the more steadily of the rightness of his position. He will easily understand why I am a bit nervous about opposing him on this occasion. Still, oppose him I must. I explained my position very clearly: that where the Gárdaí were willing to take over the administration we were anxious they should take it over. They are willing to take it over in Killiney, Ballybrack and Dalkey and incidentally, I may remark, in various other places that an attempt is being made by other amendments to get included. For that reason, because it is the most satisfactory way of administering the Act, we see no reason for including any extra place in the schedule. It seems to be unreasonable to include, say, Dalkey, Killiney, North Dublin and Clonmel if we do not include a place like Kilkenny. It would be unreasonable to include Kilkenny if you do not include Galway. It would be unreasonable to include various towns if we do not include some other places. In many cases there is the efficiency of the school attendance committee to be urged, judged by the average attendance on the rolls, and there is also the desire of the local authority. These, as Deputy Cooper mentioned, are the conventional reasons.
Deputy Cooper also urged that in the future Dalkey and Killiney may be amalgamated with a greater Dublin. Personally, my hope is that before any such thing occurs there will be an amalgamation also in the other direction: that the administration of the Act in districts convenient to Dalkey within the Metropolitan area will be taken over by the Gárdaí and I hope that amalgamation will take place before the possibly distant date that is contemplated by Deputy Cooper. We realise there is nothing very anomalous in the fact that simply because you have one such big authority, there should be different authorities under the School Attendance Bill. You have that to a certain extent in the city of Dublin. At the present moment you have several distinct committees, each responsible for its own district.
Enforcing the same system?
Enforcing the same Act. I may remark that the difficulty about going from one school attendance area into another applies there quite as much as it would apply to Dalkey and Dun Laoghaire. There is no possibility of this amendment being accepted. I might add—and I do not suggest this with a view to stopping or shortening discussion in any way— that there is no possibility of any of the other amendments dealing with this particular schedule being accepted.
No matter what may be their merits?
Their merits have been considered.
The Minister has made the position very clear. He is trying it on the dog, and Dalkey is the dog. If he succeeds in the case of Dalkey—I do not think he will—then he will be able to persuade the Dáil in regard to Dun Laoghaire and Blackrock. We will suffer that the Minister may achieve his ends.
Amendment put and negatived.
Amendment 32 reads: "In page 11 to add to the schedule the words `North Dublin Rural District."' The Minister said that the merits of all these amendments are equal. He is quite wrong. The merits of this amendment are not as strong as the merits of the last amendment.
If you want to prove that, I will help you.
When I drafted the amendments I tried to observe some principle in the schedule. One principle I could see was that urban districts should not come under the Gárdaí. Now I see that is not to be the case at all, and it is to be a question of the limit of the gullibility of the Gárdaí and the limit of their accessibility to persuasion—persuasion on the part of the Minister. That being so, no purpose will be served in moving the amendment.
I did not suggest that all the amendments were of equal merit. My hope was that they all would have the same fate. As regards the question of principle, I have no doubt that Deputy Bolger and Deputy D'Alton are also moving on matters of principle.
Amendment 32 not moved.
resumed the Chair.
Amendment 33 reads: "In page 11 to add to the schedule the words `Killiney and Ballybrack Urban District."' That amendment was put in in order to be consistent. Nobody in Killiney or Ballybrack takes the slightest interest in this.
Amendment 33 not moved.
I am afraid it looks like a forlorn hope to bring this amendment before the Dáil:—
"In page 11, to add to the schedule the words `The Borough of Clonmel."'
Deputy O'Connell's amendment was to delete the county boroughs of Limerick and Waterford. His idea was that the Gárdaí should take charge there because the school attendance committees were not doing their duty.
That was only one reason.
I believe, according to the Minister, there are not sufficient Gárdaí available for the work. That applies especially as regards Clonmel and Tipperary. The Gárdaí in both places are very limited in number. In Clonmel the school attendance committee has charge of local services, including school dentistry, child welfare, etc.; all these things are controlled by the one committee. The reports of all those boards come before this committee. The school attendance in Clonmel has reached a 95 per cent. standard. In Clonmel and Tipperary school attendance is good because the school attendance committees are interested in the work and there is no occasion for the Gárdaí.
This Bill was brought in for the purpose of ensuring the attendance of children at school. Where you have a school attendance committee such as in Clonmel, the schools are visited every school day. There is no possibility of any child being absent. If a child is absent, members of the committee go to its home and ascertain why it has not been sent to school. You are now going to take this work out of the hands of Catholic and Protestant clergymen, important drapers, members of local authorities and fathers of families who are interested in this work. They have done good work and they have brought up the school attendance from 50 per cent. to 95 per cent. of the full school roll. I do not think it is good to bring in a civil power where it is not necessary. You are now going to bring in the Gárdaí where they are not required.
If the school attendance committees are not doing their duty, it should be open to the Minister to take immediate steps to have the Act administered as he may think fit. Why take the work from those who do it usefully and voluntarily? The members of those school attendance committees are usually connected with other activities and they are daily in contact with the schools and the homes of the people. I move the amendment and I hope it will be supported. If the Minister wishes to place it in the same category as Dalkey, Killiney and Ballybrack, he will have to explain his reason for so doing.
The main argument put up by Deputy D'Alton is that the committee in Clonmel that has charge of a lot of things, including child welfare, school attendance, meals for children, etc., has been doing its work excellently. I submit that the members of that committee will have a wider field now. The duty of getting the children into the school will be handed over to the Gárdaí, and the members of the committee will have a wider field in which to expend their very useful energies. I am glad there is one place in Ireland where an interest of the kind the Deputy speaks of is taken in school life.
And yet the work is to be taken out of their hands.
If onerous, difficult work is taken from me I will hand it over very gladly. I would like to check the figures the Deputy gave before I accept them absolutely. He talked of an increased attendance from 50 to 95 per cent. I would like to know the period over which those figures extend and the manner in which they were made up. While accepting the Deputy's statement that there is a Committee there which takes an interest in its work, I suggest that in looking after school buildings, child welfare, meals for necessitous children, medical inspection and finding employment for such children as have passed the school age, the Committee will be very fully employed and can well afford to leave this other work to the Gárda Síochána.
I have not the slightest doubt that the tribute that has been paid by Deputy D'Alton to the Clonmel School Attendance Committee is well deserved. I am not quite sure about his figures. I do not say my figures are more correct, but there may be a slight divergence as to the actual percentages. The figures for 1924 show that 84 per cent. of the children on the rolls attended in Clonmel Urban District. According to the Census of 1911 the number of children between the ages of five and fifteen was 1,745. Of that number, 1,600 would be what I might term available children. The number on the rolls is 1,043 and the average attendance was 84 per cent. There are other places. The attendance in Deputy Cooper's Dalkey is 86.6; in Drogheda it is 86.5; Dundalk, 85; Fermoy, 89, and Wicklow, 85.5. From the point of view of effectiveness under this Act, I think Deputy D'Alton will recognise that in regard to other places as good a case can be made out as for Clonmel. It comes to this, that I could see no reason for taking on a place like Clonmel or Tipperary or Kilkenny. I am sorry I cannot accept this particular amendment.
Amendment put and negatived.
I think the agreement was that that disposes of Amendment 35 as well. Deputies Doyle and Bolger are interested in an amendment referring to the Borough of Kilkenny.
Amendment 35—"In page 11 to add to the Schedule the words "Tipperary Urban District" (Louis J. D'Alton)— not moved.
I move:—
In page 11 to add to the Schedule the words "the Borough of Kilkenny."
There is an important and effective committee in connection with school attendance in Kilkenny. It has been doing very good work for the past twenty-six years, and it is the wish of the committee to be retained in the position in which it has been carrying on for such a long period. I think that the arguments of Deputy D'Alton with regard to Clonmel have even a stronger force in regard to Kilkenny, where they have brought the attendance at schools during the year 1925 to the very high figure of 85 per cent.
I had an amendment down to the Schedule in the Committee Stage and it was by accident that I did not put it down for the Report Stage. In supporting the amendment of Deputy Bolger I wish to say that in the annual report dealing with primary schools, of which there are eleven in Kilkenny, it is stated that the percentage of attendance in 1923 was 85 per cent., and in 1924 it was 84 per cent. That was rather a disturbed time, a time when everybody was a law unto himself. The school attendance committee there have worked very hard and have done excellently by keeping the attendance as it is. I would not support this amendment if I thought it would, in any way, retard the progress of school attendance, as I desire to have it at the highest point possible. In the City of Kilkenny there is a population of 11,000, and in my opinion where there is such a large number of people the Gárda Síochána will have a difficult task to perform in regard to school attendance. The local committee should be allowed to co-operate with them and the borough should be included in the Schedule.
I feel impelled to move an amendment to insert Killarney and Tralee in the Schedule. The percentage there is 81 per cent. and the number on the roll between the ages of five and fifteen, according to the Census of 1911, is just 100 short of that in Galway. As a Minister, I would oppose such an amendment, but as a Deputy for Kerry I would be inclined to put down an amendment in favour of the inclusion of Killarney and Tralee. I will admit that there is very good work being done in Kilkenny by the local school attendance committee. The school-going population between the aged of 5 and 15 is 2,240, and the number on the roll is 2,027, which, in itself, is rather unique. I pay that tribute to Kilkenny, but on general principles we must rule out Kilkenny. I do not think, moreover, that there is full unanimity even in Kilkenny itself as to whether this school attendance committee should be kept on.
If the Minister has any doubt about unanimity amongst the representatives of Kilkenny, I may say that they are unanimous that the committee should be kept on, but, of course, I do not know what the President's opinion is.
Would you like to hear it?
I would. Why should Kilkenny be placed on a level with all these little provincial towns we are hearing about? We feel insulted that it should be compared with places like Tralee and Killarney. I do not think that it is fair to penalise Kilkenny in order, perhaps, to do the right thing in the case of Galway.
Has Galway asked to be included in the Schedule?
Several places have.
I have not heard any dissentient voice with regard to this amendment from the people of Kilkenny.
I have.
I recognise that I am up against a stone wall and that the policy of the Minister is going to prevail, but, perhaps, the President would tell us what his view is.
I looked upon this question, not as a representative of Kilkenny, but as a person responsible for doing what is fair and just to the whole country. Having looked at Kilkenny, I approached the next largest borough, which is Galway, and I found that Galway is out. There is this danger in urging a smaller place to be inserted and a larger place to be excluded, namely, that a very popular Deputy, if he were so inclined, might canvass and induce a large number of his friends to have his town included. That would be bad law and would reduce the character of the Dáil. As such, I am not satisfied that there is a case for the inclusion of Kilkenny. I am going to supplement what the Minister has said. I have heard objections from people in Kilkenny to the inclusion of the borough. I have also heard a case from Kilkenny to have it included, but, having considered all the circumstances, I am satisfied that I would not be justified, as a national representative in the Dáil, in putting in Kilkenny and keeping out Galway.
Amendment put and negatived.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Bill reported with amendments.
The question now would be: "That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration." Does the Minister mean to take that now?
No, we will postpone it until the first day the House meets after to-morrow; that is, possibly Tuesday week.
I think it will be Wednesday week.
Question postponed until Wednesday, 10th March.
I suppose amendments can be introduced at a later stage.
Yes.
Certain amendments have been promised.
Yes, further amendments may be moved.