Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Mar 1926

Vol. 14 No. 14

SCHOOL ATTENDANCE BILL, 1925—FOURTH STAGE.

MINISTER for EDUCATION (Professor O'Sullivan)

I move amendment 1:

"In Section 4 (3), page 3, line 39, after the word `parent' to add the words `on his parent's land.' "

There seemed to be some doubt on the last occasion as to whether the words in the Bill, as it now stands, expressed the intention of the Dáil, and an amendment was moved by Deputy O'Connell. That gave rise to some discussion. I had some doubt as to whether the particular form of words suggested was acceptable. Other considerations also came up which were not raised on the previous occasion. On both grounds I asked for postponement of the decision on the matter. Having considered the matter carefully, I came to the conclusion that what was meant on the Committee Stage, when this question was rather fully discussed, was that exemption should be for work for the parents on the parents' land. It was on that ground that we argued that exemption should be given to children aged from 12 to 14 years. It was on that ground that I argued that the provision of that exemption did not contravene the international convention at Geneva.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

resumed the Chair.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I regret I missed the debate in connection with this matter when it took place in Committee. If I had been here, I would certainly have objected to the form which the amendment has now taken. The strongest argument the Minister advanced, in my opinion, was that he was bound by the Geneva Convention in regard to the employment of children. If the Dáil is bound by that Convention we ought, of course, to stand by it. But there may be a different interpretation of the Convention. In my opinion, this is not an advisable amendment. I was picturing the state of affairs that exists in the country and I was trying, on a previous occasion, to make provision with regard to the worker on the farm. Take the work in connection with the thinning of beet. That work is generally done, in areas where labour is employed by farmers, by the wives and the children of the labourers. I want to call the Minister's attention to the fact that those children, if they were not engaged on the farms of their employers, would not be engaged at all on agricultural work, their parents having no farms. It is all right to be idealistic, but we must face the actual facts. A lot of this work is done by children. The thinning of turnips is generally done by the wives and children of agricultural workers, and in the present economic conditions —with the wages which agricultural workers receive, which are not extravagant, having regard to the cost of living—it is necessary for these workers to take advantage of every opportunity that offers to add to their incomes. If it is right that the children should be employed on their parents' land, I see no reason why the children of the workers, whose parents probably have no land, should not be allowed to work for this fortnight or so on other land. For that reason I object to the amendment.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

This question was pretty fully argued when an amendment was proposed to delete the words "for his parents," on the Committee Stage. It was fully gone over in connection with the purpose of the Bill, with the purpose of the exemption, with the connection between this particular Section 4 and Section 7 which forbids employment that interferes with school attendance. I think it was made abundantly clear on that occasion that anything that savoured of employment as a reason for remaining away from school was not acceptable. That was the view taken by the Dáil. If you allow what was suggested on the last day and has been considered fully since, what I might roughly call the swopping of children, though there may be a custom of that kind prevailing in certain portions of the country, it is impossible to draw the line between that, which is a disguised form of employment, and employment in the open sense, which is dealt with in Section 7. The matter was really discussed on two occasions. I regret that Deputy Heffernan, unfortunately, was not here on either of those occasions, but the Dáil has already expressed his opinion on the matter.

Amendment declared carried.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

I move Amendment 2:—

In Section 4 (4), page 3, line 47, after the word "parent" to add the words "on his parent's land."

Amendment agreed to.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

I move Amendment 3:—

In Section 6 (4), page 4, line 42, after the word "on" to insert the words "or at the first opportunity after."

This is to meet a difficulty that was raised. It was really a language difficulty—in the non-controversial sense of that particular phrase—as much as anything else. I think there is a legal significance in the words now proposed that will cover what we really mean.

Amendment agreed to.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

I move Amendment 4:—

In Section 10 (3), page 5, line 63, to delete the word "or" and substitute a comma, and immediately after the word "resign" to insert within the bracket the words "or are removed."

This is to correct a slip in the actual drafting of this sub-section. The sub-section did not make provision for the power that was afterwards given to remove certain members of the Committee. There are three ways in which persons may cease to be members of a committee: they may die, resign, or be removed. This is simply to meet the power subsequently given.

Amendment agreed to.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

I move amendment 5:—

In Section 11 (4), page 7, to delete all from the word "on," line 23, to the word "removal," line 26, inclusive.

It is felt that the section, as it stands ties down both the Committee and the Minister too much in insisting that the tenure should be the same and the remuneration should be the same, whether duties are increased or not. As these officers are now made pensionable, it is also only fair that they would not be in a position, for instance, to raise the fact that their duties not being exactly the same, they would have power to go on pension. I do not think there will be any difficulty in accepting the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

I move amendments 6 and 7, which stand together:—

In Section 14 (4) (c) (ii), page 9, line 13, to delete the words "one year's salary" and substitute the words "one-tenth of the annual salary of the officer for every completed year of his service, such salary being calculated."

In Section 26 (4), page 13, line 38, to delete the words "one year's salary" and substitute the words "one-tenth of the annual salary of the officer for every completed year of his service, such salary being calculated."

There was a feeling in the Dáil—at least so far as the Dáil expressed its views on the matter—that the provisions of the Bill were not generous enough to these officers. It is a matter for the Dáil to decide. I therefore propose to move that instead of a maximum of one year's salary being provided by way of compensation for those whose offices are abolished by this Bill, one year's salary for every ten years completed service should be the maximum. That is one-tenth for every completed year's service. It is a matter for the Dáil to decide whether they will have this particular amendment. In its favour I might urge that this Bill relieves the rates of the expense to which they have been put up to the present with regard to the enforcing of school attendance. That will be one of the effects of the Bill.

Therefore, even though this particular amendment be accepted, by which one-tenth of the salary of the officer for every completed year of his service will be the maximum for compensation, the Bill as a whole considerably relieves the local rates. It cannot be said, therefore, that any new burden is being put on the rates, even if this particular amendment is adopted. It is unnecessary to explain that these two particular amendments have to do with the officials whose offices are abolished either by the Bill itself or whose offices may be abolished in future. If you take the ratio of one-tenth for every year of service, the cost for part-time officers in urban areas for the whole of the Saorstát would amount to about £1,000, if the maximum were given; in rural areas to £2,100; and the total would be £3,187. The whole-time officers would be somewhat more. If you take the part-time and whole-time officers for urban and rural areas over the whole Saorstát, on this particular scale, assuming the maximum be given, the amount would be about £7,800.

Major COOPER

Speaking as an individual and not on behalf of my party who at present are absent, I welcome the amendment. I think that although the scale proposed by the Minister is not unduly generous, it is a great improvement on the previous limitations in the Bill. Some school attendance officers have up to twenty-five years' service and I think it is rather ungenerous to dismiss an official who has had twenty-five years' service and who cannot get more than one year's salary. This provision will give greater latitude, and a man with twenty-five years' service will, I take it, receive at least two and a half years' salary. This is not mandatory. It is voluntary. As the Minister said that this is going to be left to the House, I hope the House will accept it.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

Speaking on behalf of my present non-existent party I want formally to protest against the amendment.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

Your party spoke strongly in favour of it; at least the one member who was present on that occasion did so.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Question—"That the Bill as amended be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.

Fifth Stage ordered for Thursday, 11th March.