I should first like to speak on the minor matter of what the Taoiseach said with regard to Irish. If the question of Irish is at the back of this, as the Taoiseach implied, then we should expect that in such an important matter as is dealt with by the section the House would be told about it. If Irish is at the back of it, take the case of St. Vincent's Convent, Senior Girls' National Schools, North William Street. In the infant girls' school you have eight classes out of 18, in which the numbers on the roll, on 29th October, 1942, were 76 and 64 for the junior infants, 64 and 63 for the senior infants, 62 in two other grades and 59 in others.
School Attendance Bill, 1942—Committee Stage (Resumed).
Supposing we admit that that situation is not as desirable as it should be, what steps would the Deputy propose to remedy it?
I am pointing out that that has been the position for the last two years.
But I should say that it is not a question of the teachers. I am as anxious as the Deputy to remedy such conditions, and I am assuming that the Deputy is genuinely anxious to remedy them. Supposing, however, that he were Minister for Education, he must know perfectly well that it is not merely a question of supplying either teachers or even money. You have to supply space, and is it not a question of building new schools or making additions to the existing schools? I, personally, am quite willing to admit that it would be an evil if you had classes which were too large. I quite agree that the smaller the class, the more effective the control and the better the work of the teacher, but there are limits as to the distance you can go, and, assuming that it has happened that some of the infant classes are overcrowded, does the Deputy suggest that that can be remedied overnight? Is it not quite obvious that it is not a question of teachers only?
If it is a question of bringing back Irish as the spoken language of this country, it is a very important matter, and there is a very substantial number of schools to which this applies. If you turn, for instance, to St. Vincent's Convent, Junior Boys' School, you will find that at the same period the number of pupils on the rolls was as follows: Junior infants, 50, 72 and 71, in three classes, and senior infants, 61 and 62. Irish ought not to be made the occasion of going out to grab another half dozen children, whether to take them into these schools or otherwise, when by doing so you run the type of dangers that Deputy O'Sullivan speaks about. That is all I want to say on the Irish question.
I would like to see that discussed separately.
I have been trying for two years to discuss classes of that size in the City of Dublin, and this is the first occasion upon which limitation of space has been put forward as any kind of excuse.
I am not Minister for Education—I was for a period—but I can see at once that there is great difficulty in suddenly providing extra space. The city has grown tremendously, as the Deputy knows.
For two years, systematically, I have been after this, and this evening is the first time I hear about it as being a question of space, when it is a mere side issue of what we are discussing. The Taoiseach is prepared to discuss this now, but he has sat there during the discussion on Section 3 when Deputy O'Sullivan referred to the same difficulties and discussed the same points practically, as far as he was concerned, with the Minister as have been discussed on Section 4. The Taoiseach sat there and allowed a situation to develop in this House in which Deputy O'Sullivan left the House because of the impossibility of carrying on any kind of discussion here. The Taoiseach did not intervene in the matter that Deputy O'Sullivan referred to.
Deputy O'Sullivan can do a little bit of acting, too, you know.
I am going to do a little bit of acting in this, if the Taoiseach wants to call it acting.
The reason why I intervened was that I took it the Deputy was talking seriously about it. I am not saying that Deputy O'Sullivan was not serious, but sometimes Deputy O'Sullivan can do a little bit of acting.
While Deputy O'Sullivan was speaking, even on Section 3, I was beginning to feel that the line the Minister for Education was taking with him had a sinister aspect and I felt that the silence of the Taoiseach during that discussion was sinister in itself. The Taoiseach's silence had that effect on me, particularly when we were discussing Section 4, but I find his speech since Deputy O'Sullivan left even more sinister. I consider the suggestion that the Taoiseach sees some bit of acting in Deputy O'Sullivan's attitude more than sinister. I think to allow Deputy O'Sullivan, after discussing in a very serious and earnest way a serious subject, to leave the House without making any attempt to help the House to a discussion of this matter, was insulting to the House.
I could not put my arms around him and ask him to stay, could I? There is a bit of acting there, too, I think.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 59; Níl, 25.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Childers, Erskine H.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- Friel, John.
- Fuller, Stephen.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Hannigan, Joseph.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Keane, John J.
- Kelly, James P.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Loughman, Francis.
- Lynch, James B.
- McCann, John.
- McDevitt, Henry A.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- Meaney, Cornelius.
- Moran, Michael.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Timothy J.
- Norton, William.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Loghlen, Peter J.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Pattison, James P.
- Ryan, James.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Bennett, George C.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Coburn, James.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John A.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Dockrell, Henry M.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hughes, James.
- Keating, John.
- Lynch, Finian.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Donovan, Timothy J.
- O'Sullivan, John M.
- Reidy, James.
- Reynolds, Mary.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and S. Brady; Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 5.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In sub-section (1), page 4, to delete lines 30 to 32, and substitute the words "transferred from a national school to another school (being a national school, a suitable school or a recognised school) provided accommodation is available and—".
This amendment makes the provision section dealing with the transfer of pupils from a national school applicable to all other types of schools.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.
I move amendment No. 6:—
In sub-section (1), page 4, to insert after paragraph (a) the following paragraph:—
"the child has changed his ordinary place of residence, or".
This is a provision which appeared in the 1926 Act, and it has been thought advisable to restore it.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 7:—
In sub-section (1), page 4, to insert after paragraph (a) the following paragraph:—
"the parent of the child desires the transfer on religious grounds or".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In sub-sections (3), (4) and (5), to delete the word "one" where it occurs in lines 46, 51 and 57 and substitute the word "a"; in sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) to delete the word "national" where it occurs in lines 47, 51 and 58 after the word "another"; and in sub-section (3) to delete the word "national" in line 49.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 9:—
Before Section 6, to insert a new section as follows:——
(1) When a child to whom the Principal Act applies is transferred from a school (in this sub-section referred to as the former school) which is a national school or a suitable school or a recognised school to another school (in this sub-section referred to as the new school), the principal teacher of the new school shall request the principal teacher of the former school (who shall comply with the request) to furnish to him a certificate in the prescribed form stating the period during which the child was attending the former school, the number of attendances and absences of the child at or from the former school during the prescribed portion of such period, and the class in the former school in which the child was placed for instruction immediately before his transfer.
(2) The Minister may make regulations in relation to any matter or thing referred to in sub-section (1) of this section as prescribed and the word "prescribed" in the said sub-section means prescribed by such regulations.
(3) Until regulations are made by the Minister under sub-section (2) of this section, regulations made under the Principal Act for the purposes of sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Principal Act and in force immediately before the commencement of this section, shall continue in force and be deemed to have been made under sub-section (2) of this section.
This amendment imposes an obligation on the teacher of the school from which a child is being transferred to provide the teacher of the school to which the child is going with a certificate giving certain particulars regarding the educational standard and type of the pupil. The object of it is to assist teachers to form a correct idea of a pupil's attainments. It has nothing to do with the legality of the transfer. I think it will be found useful in making the administration effective.
A number of points arise on this new section. It says that the principal teacher of the new school shall request the principal teacher of the former school to comply with the request to furnish him with a certificate, etc. I suggest the request ought to be in a prescribed form just as a certificate will be in a prescribed form. A question arises as to whether a time limit should not be imposed under which the principal teacher of the former school should comply with the request. I suggest that it might read: "who shall comply with the request within two days", or, at any rate, within some prescribed period. The new section speaks of a certificate "in the prescribed form, stating the period during which the child was attending the former school". I think the Minister might consider substituting the words "enrolled at" for the word "attending".
Sub-section (2) of the new section says that the Minister may make regulations, etc. I think the Minister ought to outline what exactly he has in mind with regard to the things he will prescribe by regulation. Questions such as this will arise. Is it on the application of the child or of the parent that a request for a transfer from one school to another is going to arise? Will the application be made to the principal teacher of the former school or to the principal teacher of the school to which the child proposes to go? The question of correspondence will arise if you have a large number of transfers. If forms are not provided, and if there is a question of postage, I would like to hear from the Minister what exactly he thinks should take place as between the child, or the parent of the child, and the two teachers involved when an application is made. Does the Minister propose to prescribe the form in which the application will be made, and will he say what exactly he contemplates under sub-section (2) of the new section?
On this section I want to protest in the most solemn form against any check or restriction being placed upon parents who deem it necessary, in the interest of their child, to move that child from one approved school to another approved school. It is bad enough for this Government, or any other Government, to take over from parents the duty of seeing that their children get adequate education, but surely, when the State has gone the length of indicating the type of school to which a child must be sent, it ought to draw the line and say to the parents: "Provided you conform with that general direction to give your child an adequate education, we are not going to hinder you or interfere with you in your discretion as to how best your child can get that education, whether it be at school A, school B, or school C."
I see in sub-section (2) of this proposed section a general power given the Minister to make regulations in relation to any matter or thing referred to in sub-section (1) as prescribed, and the word prescribed in the said sub-section "means prescribed by such regulations." It appears to me that in these circumstances the Minister might issue a regulation which would make it virtually impossible to transfer a child from one school to another. I could proceed to particularise cases in rural Ireland, with which I am peculiarly familiar, in which it would be desirable to take a child from one school and send it to another.
I know very well that many teachers want to create as many difficulties as they can for a parent who contemplates moving his child to another teacher's school lest transfers of this kind might affect the averages and possibly reduce the teaching staff in one school, while maintaining the teaching staff in another school. I suggest that minor considerations of this character have no weight as opposed to the fundamental principle that a parent has the primary duty of educating his child, and that the less interference there is by the State in that duty the better it is for society as a whole.
The Deputy's speech would have been more relevant on Section 5, which has been passed, or to the Second Stage.
I am talking of the powers contained in Section 6 (2).
Section 5 deals specifically with transfers from one national school to another such school.
This proposed new section gives the Minister power to make any regulations he likes. What does Section 6 deal with?
It deals with the obligation to obtain a certificate on transfer from one school to another.
A certificate by the teacher of the school from which the child is being transferred. In regard to that, the Minister may make any regulation he likes.
The actual transfer is dealt with in Section 5.
I object to the proposal to give the Minister general power to introduce new restrictions or new difficulties into the path of a parent desirous of changing his child from one school to another. All of us are aware of the origin of this reluctance to facilitate that operation. I am suggesting it ought to be facilitated in every possible way and that the Oireachtas has the duty to see that the Minister is not given power to make the operation unduly difficult or cumbrous.
We are dealing with ordinary country people and, if they are confronted with difficulties and protracted negotiations between two teachers, both of whom will be their neighbours, they will be inclined to shrug their shoulders and say: "If we move the child we will never hear the end of it; there will be letters passing between those teachers for the next six months and we will be cross-hackled and cross-questioned, so, for the sake of peace, it might be better to leave the child as he is." The child ought to have the fullest freedom and every facility should be given to parents to transfer their children.
These powers are contained in Section 5. Section 6 deals with the certificates to be obtained after the child has been transferred.
You may think, in your personal judgment, that this constitutes no block, but I am entitled to think that it does, and surely I am entitled to make that case. I am making the case that you are wrong in your interpretation of this section. I think you fail to see the implications of this section. I am speaking from my knowledge of rural conditions and I say that if the Minister makes a regulation relating to the information that must be furnished by one teacher to another teacher in the event of a child being transferred, a situation can be created which no country person can face and that person will prefer to leave the child in the school where he did not want to leave it rather than put the teachers to the rounds that they can be put to if they require to exchange too complicated a series of forms consequent on the transfer of the child.
I object to that. I say it is wrong. You will have all this abracadabra asking the teacher what class the child was in, the period he attended the school, the number of attendances and the class in the former school in which the child was placed for instruction immediately before his transfer. What is the necessity for that type of "codology"? If the child was coming de novo to that school from a school in England or Northern Ireland would not the teacher have to find out these things as best he could? What is the purpose of creating this exchange of voluminous correspondence between the teachers?
We are further informed that, over and above these particulars, the Minister may stipulate for added particulars and he can prescribe the form in which these particulars will be furnished. We were not born yesterday, and we know the horror the country people have of this interminable bureaucratic interchange of correspondence and their anxiety to shake themselves free from it. I object to this further interference of the State in regard to how a child ought to be educated, and I say that the purpose of Section 6 is not to secure information for the teacher of the school to which the child is going, but to make the transfer of a child from one school to another more difficult. It is like saying: "We are going to let you do it, but if you do there will be a hive of bees let loose around your ears and they will be buzzing for six months. If you want peace, ease and quietness, leave the child where he is; if you shift him, make ready to have him made the subject of correspondence between two teachers until you are sick and tired of it all, until the child will be sick of it and the teachers will be disgusted with the annoyance brought upon them."
I do not believe the prima facie purpose of this section is the true purpose of it. I believe it is put there because national teachers and inspectors do not want to see transfers. They allege, and possibly believe, that most of these transfers are done from a venal motive. The truth is there will be half of 1 per cent. of the transfers in the country effected through a venal motive. Perhaps a teacher will bring a child out of a school where it ordinarily would go, into his own school, in order to maintain the average. Then teachers will take the view that if they have a quarrel with a child's parents, it is not a good ground for shifting the child from their school to another school. I do not agree with them. I think that one of the essentials of education is full confidence between the parents of a child and his teacher, and if there is a serious falling out between the teacher and the parents, the sooner the children are removed to the custody of another teacher, the better for the teacher and for everybody else. I say that the purpose of Section 6 is to make that operation more difficult than it would otherwise be. I object to it. It is unsound. It is a rotten principle and the House ought not to stand for it.
The only information the teacher ought to be entitled to ask of any principal teacher is: "Do this child's parents want this child transferred from your school to my school?" If the answer is in the affirmative, the transfer should be made; if the answer is in the negative, the child should be sent back to the school whence it came. That is all they should be entitled to ask, and that is all they have any business to ask. I think that any average, competent teacher will discover very rapidly what class a child ought to be put into within a very few days of its entering the school. Let inspectors and school attendance officers worry themselves about the frequency with which the child attended its former school, or the frequency with which the child absented itself from its former school. The only thing the teacher requires to know is that the parents of the child desire to commit that child to the teacher's care. That being so, the teacher must do the best he can for it, and we ought to do nothing further to restrict the absolute freedom of the parent to move his child from one school to another, or to make any other amendment in the educational curriculum of the child for which he is responsible.
Deputies are inclined to shake their heads and to say that this is making a great fuss about nothing. That is all very well, so long as we continue to live in the atmosphere in which we live at the moment, where all the national schools are managed by the parish priests, where the whole principle of religious education is recognised. The same was true in Austria where everybody thought it perfectly safe to carry on, that there was no necessity to be unduly alarmed, because after all it was the Church herself who was responsible for education, and it was unnecessary to dwell unduly on the responsibility of the parents, and so forth. Are they saying that in Austria now? If they had accepted in Austria this general principle that it was more and more the responsibility of the State, and not of the parents, to provide for their children's education, Catholics who would have accepted that doctrine have put themselves in the position now of admitting the right of a Nazi State to insist on their children going to schools where the name of God need never be mentioned, where the name of God must never be mentioned. Catholic parents who would subscribe to this type of legislation implicitly admit the right of the State to impose such conditions. The State has no such right, and never will have such a right, and we should not tacitly suggest that we acknowledge that right of the State by co-operating in the creation of unnecessary difficulties for the exercise of the parent's absolute discretion as to how best a child is to get education. Section 6 does that. Possibly Section 5 did it to a greater extreme, but Section 6 is there for that purpose, I am convinced, and for very little other purpose. On these grounds, I do not think that either the amendment or the section to which it purports to be an amendment, should be passed by the House.
It is obvious that Deputy Dillon has not taken the trouble to read the Bill or the original Act.
Indeed I have.
He is really wasting the time of the House in a most deplorable manner.
Nothing of the kind.
Section 6, sub-section (4) of the School Attendance Act, 1926, says:—
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 the child, but in any case a child to whom this Act applies shall only be transferred from one national school to another national school on or at the first opportunity after 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.
That has been the law for 16 years and no change is being made in it now. We turn then to Section 15, sub-section (3) of the 1926 Act, and we find:—
When a child to whom this Act applies is removed from a national or other suitable school, the principal teacher of such school shall on demand give to the parent of such child a certificate in the prescribed form stating the period during which such child was attending such school, the number of attendances and absences of such child at or from such school during the prescribed portion of such period, and the class in the school in which the child was placed for instruction immediately before his removal from the school, and the parent of the child shall exhibit such certificate to the principal teacher of any national or other suitable school to which he applies for the admission of the child.
The amendment proposes, instead of the present arrangement whereby the parent has to ask the teacher for this certificate, to make it compulsory on the teacher to supply the certificate at the request of the teacher in the school to which the child is going. The Deputy may see some interference with parental rights in this matter, or some bureaucratic interference, but the point is that there have been large numbers of children about whom precise details were not available who left one school and, for all we know, did not attend another school, and the present provision that the parent of a child should get this certificate is inoperative, if the parent is not sending the child, or trying to send the child, to another school. If a child has left a particular school and is not going to another school, does Deputy Dillon think that such a state of affairs should be allowed to continue unremedied? That has been found to be the position.
What will simply happen now is that the child presents himself, and the principal teacher in the new school to which he is being transferred will ask for this form. That will give him the particulars of the child's educational attainments. Is it not very reasonable that the teacher should get that in the speediest and most efficient manner, and that it should be made readily available to him—that he should not have to depend on parents who might not be in a position, or might not bother their heads, to get this certificate? It is a matter of importance for the teacher, and the law will, I hope, insist on the teachers setting this matter between themselves and that the parent should not come in in connection with the form at all. It has not been found satisfactory.
The Deputy is entirely mistaken if he thinks there is any prejudice, so far as the Department of Education or inspectors are concerned, against the transfer of children from one school to another. Parents are entitled to remove their children for good reasons, but not for a mere whim, and when an application for the transfer of a child during the terms comes to me. Sometimes the inspector is asked for his opinion. The sole consideration is whether there is a good reason. If parents have had a dispute with a teacher, or if they feel that a child is not making sufficient progress, or if another school would be more convenient—if, for example, there are other children of the family going to the other school—any ordinary, common-sense reason which would appeal to persons of common sense is accepted. But if there were not some safeguards, if transfers were to be given holus-bolus merely on the application of parents, without stating any reason, obviously schools might be closed down.
It is not in the interests of the country, I submit, that we should have wholesale withdrawals, unless there are very good reasons. We are merely, therefore, strengthening the provision which was there. There is actually this form at present which parents are supposed to ask the principal teacher to fill up to give, presumably, to the teacher in the school to which the child is going. That form will continue, or, if the Minister thinks it necessary, he will devise a new form and new regulations. If he thinks the existing procedure can be improved he will have power under the new section to do it.
There is no intention whatever, I should like again to emphasise, of interfering in any way with parents transferring their children from one school to another. After all, common sense ought to suggest to the Deputy that the teachers to whom the pupils are being transferred have an interest in the matter. If the other teachers have a grievance, so far as the teachers' organisation is concerned, I am sure that the body of teachers to whom the pupils are going have also an interest in the matter, and it is not at all likely, even from the point of view of the teachers, that they would all take up the attitude that there should be no transfers. What we have all been agreed upon, and what has been the policy of the Department since the original Act was brought in, is that once there is good reason, a reasonable cause given, the transfer must be granted, even during the term.
Mr. Brennan
On sub-section (2), the Minister suggested that he can make certain regulations. Generally these regulations envisage penalties for noncompliance. If there are not penalties how will the Minister enforce the regulations? If there are penalties, we ought to know what they are. If the section is not mere window-dressing, we ought to know how the Minister will make it effective; how he will compel a teacher to ask for a return or a statement or a prescribed form and the other teacher to give it. How will he enforce that?
As a general rule, I think teachers are amenable to instructions either from their managers or from the Education Office. I do not think that when a regulation of this kind, which is made in their own interests and to simplify matters in connection with transfers, is put into operation, the teachers are likely to refuse to carry it out. I will consider whether anything in the nature of a penalty is necessary before the Report Stage.
Mr. Brennan
I am not asking for it.
I doubt very much if it is necessary.
Mr. Brennan
I want to know how you will enforce it.
How do we enforce all the things we send out from the Education Office?
I raised some points which the Minister appears to have forgotten. I asked the Minister to give us a picture as to what exactly happens when a transfer of this kind takes place. In reply to Deputy Dillon he said that when a child presents himself at a new school the teacher will then make application to the former teacher for the necessary form. When we passed Section 5, I understood that any child can turn up at any national school at the beginning of a recognised quarter and that he may not be refused by the teacher there.
That is so.
The position then is that at the beginning of any quarter any child can turn up at a national school and, if the child is above the required age, then the teacher automatically puts through an application to the former teacher to which he has to get a reply. That more or less answers one point. At the beginning of a quarter a parent can take a child from one national school and send it to another, and that parent has not to go to the principal teacher or carry out negotiations with that teacher or the other teacher. The child can be transferred in that way. It is only when a parent wants to have a child transferred in the middle of a school quarter that the question of the Minister's consent arises. Neither the Minister nor the teacher of any national school can prevent a child from going to a particular national school at the beginning of a quarter. So that even if a question does arise, they can only hold up the child in the school to which the parent objects for whatever period is left of the quarter. Then there is another question I want to put to the Minister. If a child wants a transfer from one school to another, in what school is he enrolled while waiting for the certificate? I take it that if he goes to a new school at the beginning of a quarter he is enrolled in the new school from the day of his attendance.
Yes.
If he wants to go to a new school in the middle of a quarter, I take it he is enrolled in the old school until the necessary consent is given for the transfer.
Yes.
The Minister rather undermines my confidence in my appreciation of the situation when he says that children cannot be removed for a mere whim, and goes on to say that schools must not be closed down. When the Minister says that it is not in the interests of the country to have wholesale withdrawals from schools——
Without reason.
——that seems to cut across my appreciation of what the section generally means because, as I read Section 5, if you have two schools three miles apart and for any reason the majority of the parents of the children in school A are dissatisfied with the position in that school and decide at the beginning of a particular quarter they will send their children to school B, the Minister's remark implies that he would be likely to step in to prevent these children being enrolled at school B.
I may not have explained this properly. Deputy Mulcahy brought out the point which I have emphasised that, of course, parents cannot be prevented from sending children to other schools, provided they do so at the beginning of the term. No reason need be assigned. They are perfectly free to do that; no one can stop them. I was explaining with regard to my own function in the matter that I find it necessary to inquire what the reason is. Provided any commonsense reason is given, even for a transfer during the middle of the period, it is granted. If the parents choose, they can wait until the beginning of a new quarter and they need not ask the Minister's permission at all. I was merely explaining that some investigation is necessary by the Minister, and the practice is to send the case to the inspector, where necessary. But, normally, these transfers are granted almost automatically.
Then I raised the question of whether there ought not to be prescribed forms of application by which the new teacher would apply to the old teacher. From what the Minister says now it seems to me that the application and the report could be put on the one form, so that the old teacher could reply on the actual form of application that would come to him. Then I raised the question of who pays the postage. It has been going on for a long time, and I suppose the postage is paid in one way or another. I should like to know what fund it comes out of, or whether, if postage has to be paid, the forms might not be issued with a printed frank stamp in the way in which some envelopes used by certain Departments are franked, so that the teacher would fill up the form and post it, and the franking on the form would establish what it was for. Then I raised the question whether there should not be a period inside which the new teacher would make his report. I think that even though the fact is established that the child can be taken into the school without that certificate, it does not obviate the necessity for getting a report at the earliest possible moment so that whatever report comes from the former school will be a guide as to how the child will be placed in the new school. Again, harking back to Section 5, sub-section (2) of that section refers to Section 15 of the Principal Act, and it is questionable whether that sub-section will have any validity if sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Principal Act is annulled, as it will be annulled under this.
I should like to ask the Minister whether there is any provision for children who may leave a particular school at the age of 12 or 13 because they are going to reside in another area, and then do not present themselves at any other school. When they go to the new district who is responsible for seeing that they attend school? I know of cases where children of 12 or 13 have left one locality for another and never attended school any more. I do not see any provision in this Act or in the Principal Act for keeping in touch with such children.
It is the duty of the school attendance officers in the cities and of the Gárda Síochána in country districts. In the county boroughs it is the duty of the school attendance officers to see that all children there of school attendance age are attending school. In the City of Dublin, in my view, it would be the business of the school attendance committee to see that they have accurate knowledge from the schools as to the pupils attending—that goes without saying— and also, through their school attendance officers, to get information with regard to children who were not attending school. It is very difficult in the case of young children who, perhaps, have never attended school, to get information, and the co-operation of the police authorities would obviously be necessary. If children have already attended school but, as Deputy Allen suggests, have left one district and gone to another, I think it should be the duty of the Gárda Síochána or the school attendance officers to communicate the particulars, where possible, to the area to which the parents have removed. The provisions we are making with regard to vagrants, for example, will deal, I hope, with one particular class. The difficulty that has arisen in Dublin is that parents may not be living in the particular areas where their children are attending school, and so on, and each area in the city is not self-contained in the same way as an area in a country district would be. However, we are giving school attendance committees power to get additional information from the schools, and I am hopeful that in the future there will be comprehensive records in the hands of the school attendance committees of all the children who have attended school at one time or another. In that way, it ought to be possible to trace whether such children, in the event of their parents changing their residences, have gone to another school or whether they have ceased going to school. In the case of very young children, as I said, it may be difficult to establish when they first go to school, but it is largely a matter for the school attendance officers. We are giving them general powers here, but we leave in their own hands, very largely, the collecting of information. The teachers will co-operate with them in every possible way, but we can never be sure that the parents are co-operating, and we have to take special measures, as I already mentioned, to deal with particular types of parents.
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to Amendment No. 39, in my name, which asks for the insertion of a new section, to the effect that the principal teacher of every national or other suitable school shall supply a weekly return of the pupils who have been struck off the roll, including the names and addresses of the pupils, and the reasons for their removal from the roll. I think that if the Minister could see his way to accept that amendment it would meet Deputy Allen's point.
I have accepted it.
Surely, in the case of a child of 13 or 13½, who ceases to attend school, it is the business of the teacher to inform the school attendance officer that the child has not turned up to school.
He is not bound to do so.
Why does every Deputy in this House seem to assume that no teacher will do his duty unless there is a heavy penalty held over his head, and that all parents are diabolical and will not look after the interests of their children? Many teachers do a number of very good things that they are not bound to do, and surely a principal teacher, in the case of a child of 13 or 13½, who had ceased to attend school, would inform the school attendance officer of that fact? Perhaps Deputy O'Rourke, who is a principal teacher himself, would inform us?
Well, if the principal teacher was aware that the child and its parents had gone to another district he might not bother his head about it.
Surely, the teacher might recognise the necessity of informing the school attendance officer that So-and-so, who had been attending his school, was no longer in his district, and had gone to another district, and then it would be a question of placing him in a school in the new district? I notice that Deputy Mulcahy talks here about a weekly return. Does he think that that would be necessary?
I am quite prepared to accept a monthly return. I think that a quarterly return would be too unwieldy, whereas a weekly or monthly return would not be too bad.
If the pupil were taken off the roll, the teacher would not have to make the return in that particular week?
No.
Well, I think that that is a sensible provision. I want to return to the words employed by the Minister for Education. The Minister for Education, defining his attitude to an application for a transfer in the mid-quarterly period, says that he would give the transfer provided he was satisfied that it did not arise from some whim of the parents and that we had to bear in mind that it would not be a good thing if schools had to be closed down. The first proviso I want to protest against most emphatically. What right, God-given or otherwise, has Tomás O Deirg, Aire Oideachais in this country, to determine whether the exercise of a Christian parent's discretion derives from a whim or not? I say he has none whatever. If the Minister for Education for Ireland goes to a parent in this country, all that these parents should be required to say is: "A hAire, be mhaith liom mo bhuachaill a bheith sa scoil sin"— and no more. I say that Tomás O Deirg has no right to go on to say: "Cad thuige?" All he is entitled to be informed of is that the parents desire the child to go from school A to school B and, provided he is satisfied that the parents deliberately exercise that preference, a political Minister of State has no right to thrust his nose within the family circle and go on to say: "Why?" I want to re-emphasise this fact, that if 20 years ago in Austria I had made the objection that I am making now, many a person would have said: "Ah, that is all supererogation and getting excited over trifles." Would they say the same to-day? I venture to swear there are schools in Austria at the present day—a country as Catholic as this country—one in which there is a vicious propagandist Nazi teacher, and the other in which there is a decent teacher who is trying to give the children as fair an education as it is possible for children to get under a Nazi dispensation. If the Minister for Education in Austria went to a parent and said: "Why do you want your child transferred?" he dare not say: "Because the teacher in school A is a violent Nazi, and the teacher in school B is a Catholic man doing the best he can within the educational system laid down under the Nazi dispensation that is thrust upon this Catholic country."
If Catholics in Austria 20 years ago had been thrown off their guard by the apparent peace and quiet that obtained in that country at that time, and tacitly consented to the right of a Minister of State to come to parents and say: "I not only want to know that you wish your child transferred; I want to know why you wish him transferred"—if they had admitted that right 20 years ago, then that admission could be quoted against them to-day as justification for the gauleiter for the district coming to a Catholic parent in Austria to-day and saying: "We understand you want your child transferred to school B. Why do you want your child transferred? State your reason. Because, remember, if the reason is a good reason, a patriotic reason, a reason that commends itself to the Fuehrer, certainly, no difficulty will be created, but if it is a whim, just peculiar to yourself, that is quite another story. I am determined to know why you want your son transferred." I deny the right of the Minister for Education to ask that question. I deny his right to interfere thus far with the discretion of any parent in this country. I say that although it may appear superficial, a very serious question of principle is here joined, and I decline to allow the slightest trespass to be made upon it without protesting most emphatically and most vigorously.
The Minister then says: "Of course you would not want schools closed all over the place through mass transfers." I remember a district justice in this city announcing that he was going to send three children to an industrial school because there were not enough children to provide capitation grants for the teachers in the industrial school. He sent them to the industrial school and there was a fight in the appropriate quarters to get them out again. He thought he was perfectly justified because he did not want the industrial schools closed. Is the Minister going to take up the position now that he will allow his judgment to be influenced as to whether a child is to be transferred from one school to another by the question of whether that school is to be closed or not? If a school goes down to the minimum number of children which will provide a teacher for it, are we to understand that thereafter there can be no transfers?
No.
Then what does the Minister mean? Of course, when you put the question to him perfectly clearly, he runs away from it and denies the whole implication of his own words, but we all heard what he said: that if there was an application for a transfer, certainly, he would examine the facts, but he would not grant it if it was a question of some whim; he would grant it only if there was a good reason, and he wants us all to remember that it would not be salutary if there was a closing down of schools resulting from mass transfers. What did he mean when he said that? He says he does not mean the only thing any sane man would understand him to mean.
It is because I see that whole tendency creeping into the Department of Education that I shall continue to protest against any further attempt by that Department or its inspectors to poke their noses in where they have no business. They are getting an idea in this country that they are the parents of the children. They are not and they never will be. The School Attendance Act of 1926 was pregnant with danger and there were some voices—I am happy to think—raised in the House at that time against it on the ground that it was pregnant with danger and it would merely be a new departure point for fresh inroads on to perhaps the most vital principle affecting the whole society of this country. Their apprehensions, I regret to say, are being vindicated. So long as I am in this House, every attempt that is made by the Department or its inspectors to strengthen their grip on the essential rights of parents ultimately to determine the form and nature of the education their children shall have, I shall resist to the best of my ability. I warn Deputies of this House that if they allow incursions of this kind to be made, on the ground that, in the circumstances in which we are living in Ireland, no serious danger need be apprehended from them, they will live to regret the day. In existing circumstances perhaps no serious evil will manifest itself as the result of this whittling away of parents' essential rights, but the time may come when many grave evils may follow and then it will be much too late to repair the wrong we are doing now. It will never, however, be said that this line of country has been travelled with the unanimous consent of Dáil Eireann as long as I am in it. It is not with my consent. I think it is dangerous. I think it is foolish. I think it is unnecessary, and I think it arises from the bureaucratic passion of the Department of Education to poke its nose in where it has no business.
Is the amendment agreed to?
Has that amendment been put to the House? I desire to be recorded as dissenting.
Deputy Dillon dissenting.
The question has not been put yet, so I cannot dissent.
Question—"That such new section be inserted"— put and declared carried; Deputy Dillon dissenting.
Section 6 is deleted on the adoption of the new section.
You have put the amendment. Now you are putting the section, as amended. Is not that so?
No. A new section takes the place of Section 6.
Surely you must put the section, as amended.
The adoption of amendment No. 9 means automatically the wiping out of the section.
Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12 not moved.
SECTION 7.
I move amendment No. 13:—
In sub-section (1) (a), line 15, page 5, to delete the word "twelve" and substitute therefor the word "fourteen".
The object is to secure that no person who has not attained the age of 14 years should be taken into employment. A certain amount of attention has already been drawn to the fact that 14 years of age is too early an age for children to leave the primary schools. Two reasons are given for that. The first is the inadequacy of the education that can be given to children up to that age, and the second reason is the grave difficulty there is in finding employment for all classes of young people on leaving school. I am arguing this matter from a city point of view. Even before the present emergency, it was heart-rending to try to get employment for youths of 17, 18 and 19 years of age. If there is work, it ought to be so organised and distributed that instead of having children of 12, 13 and 14 years of age employed on it, it should be made available for youths of 16, 17 and 18 years. The latter should be employed on it in preference to their younger brothers and sisters.
In present circumstances we have the school day divided from 9 o'clock in the morning until 4 in the afternoon, with a break for a mid-day meal for both teachers and children. The extension of the working school day makes it all the more necessary that children of school-going age, even with the low limit of 14 years, should not be allowed to absorb the small amount of employment that is there. It is disastrous to have youths of 15, 16 and 17 years of age with nothing to do. Admittedly, the type of work that children of 12 and 13 years of age can do is small and petty. It would, I submit, be of great advantage to the elder children if they could even get that work rather than have them hanging around in idleness, and almost a blot on their homes. There is nothing more tragic or demoralising in any home than the feeling that children of 15, 16 and 17 years of age can find nothing to do. Even if they could only get this small petty work that the younger children are now employed on it might be the means of making suitable personal contacts for them and steering them into a better type of occupation. The same fruitful result is not likely in the case of the younger children. There are many people who would be glad to get in touch with boys and girls of 15, 16 and 17 years of age who are doing petty work because they would get a certain amount of experience of them, and might be in a position to find better openings for them. From the employment point of view, on the one side, and from the educational point of view on the other, I think we should be prepared to accept it that 14 years should be the age at which young people should be taken into employment.
The Deputy will see from the Order Paper that I am accepting amendments in the names of Deputies Norton and Hurley to reduce the number of hours' employment permissible for children from 12 to 14 years of age on school days and on non-school days. The function of the Minister for Education, I take it, ought to be to see that the attendance of the children is not interfered with, and that they do not engage in employment which would in any way prevent or interfere with their obtaining proper benefit from the advantages they receive from their educational course. I think that the amendments which I have put down cover the situation fairly well. The original Act intended that regulations should be laid down dealing with this matter, but such regulations were never in fact made. As I said on the Second Reading, the general question of the regulation of employment for children is really a matter for the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
Under the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936, and the Conditions of Employment (Shops) Acts, 1938, children under 14 are prevented from engaging in industrial or shop work of certain kinds. The present provision prohibits the employment of boys or girls between 12 and 14, and prohibits altogether the employment of children under 12. The Minister may prohibit, under amendment No. 20 which I have on the Order Paper, the employment of either boys or girls in particular employments where their age is between 12 and 14, or he may restrict the hours of employment between those years, or he may prescribe conditions of employment. There is very wide power under which the Minister may make regulations.
Furthermore, the district justice has power to lay down certain conditions in connection with the employment of children between 12 and 14 years of age. That is in the old Section 7 (d). Even though he may not contravene any actual provision in the regulations, if the district justice is satisfied that a child's education is being interfered with, or that he is not receiving full benefit from his attendance at school, through some employment which he is following, he may lay down certain conditions governing it. I think the Deputy will recognise that it would be impossible, as I indicated on the Second Reading, to cover the case of children working for their parents. The definition of employment is working for gain in pursuit of a trade. It would be very difficult to frame a regulation—it may be possible in the future and if it can be done it will be done— under this provision. In considering the provisions for the present Bill, I have not been able to devise any means of covering that particular type of employment. It would be impossible, I think, to cover up the loophole unless you could cover up that also. I move to report progress.
Progress reported; the Committee to sit again.