Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 18 Feb 1943

Vol. 89 No. 6

School Attendance Bill, 1942—From the Seanad.

The Dáil went into Committee to consider amendments from the Seanad to the School Attendance Bill, 1942.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1:—

Section 8. In sub-section (2), after paragraph (c), the following paragraph inserted:—

(d) the employment of a child, who has attained the age of 12 years, in light agricultural work suitable to his age and physical condition, if such employment takes place only on a day on which the school at which the child is attending is not in operation.

Perhaps the best way to deal with this particular amendment is to suggest to the House that it is in accordance with Article 1 of the Geneva Convention of 1932, dealing with the age for admission of children to employment in agriculture. It says:

"A child under the age of 14 years may not be employed or work in any public or private agricultural undertaking or in any branch thereof save outside the hours fixed for school attendance. If they are employed outside the hours fixed for school attendance, the employment shall not be such as to prejudice their attendance at school."

This amendment is in accordance with that principle and will cover the particular cases of part-time employment of a character suitable to their age and physical condition, which might be available for children at busy times on the farms and which would not conflict with their attendance at school nor, I hope, with the advantages to be derived from school attendance. There was a feeling in the other House that this particular matter should be met, and I introduced this amendment to meet the situation. I recommend it to the Dáil for acceptance.

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 2:—

Section 8. In sub-section (2), in line 48, page 5, after the word "step-mother" the words "uncle, aunt," inserted; and in line 49, the words "or half-sister" deleted, and the words "half-sister or guardian" substituted.

This is an amendment to extend the definition of relative in Section 8, dealing with the regulation of the employment of children, so as to cover the case of a guardian, an uncle or an aunt, in addition to the other relatives set out.

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 3:—

Section 19. In sub-section (1), line 3, page 9, the words "the Principal Act and" deleted; and in line 4, the words "the Principal Act, or" deleted.

This is a drafting amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 4:—

Section 19. Sub-section (2) deleted, and the following sub-section substituted therefor:—

(2) Where, in a prosecution of a parent for an offence under this section the court either convicts the parent of the offence or (on the ground that the parent has used all reasonable efforts to cause the child in respect of whom the prosecution is brought to attend school in accordance with this Act) applies sub-section (1) of Section 1 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, the following provisions shall have effect—

(a) the court may, if it so thinks fit, cause the said child to be brought before it and may question (either, as it thinks fit, privately or otherwise) the said child,

(b) the court may, whether it exercises the power conferred by the immediately preceding paragraph or not, if it so thinks fit—

(i) order the said child to be sent to a certified industrial school, in which case Part IV of the Children Act, 1908, as amended by subsequent enactments, shall (so far as applicable) apply as if such order had been made thereunder, or

(ii) order, in accordance with Part II of the said Children Act, 1908, as so amended, the committal of the said child to the care of a relative or other fit person named by the court, in which case the said Part II, as so amended shall (so far as applicable) apply as if such order had been made thereunder.

It is considered desirable to bring out more clearly the intention of the section. In the Bill as originally drafted, this section—and indeed Section 17, sub-section (4), of the 1926 Act —was somewhat defective, in the sense that the alternative was to be left to the district justice to commit a child, even when no offence had been proved. That reading could have been taken out of the present Bill and the section I have referred to in the original Act. This amendment is really for the purpose of clarification, to make it quite clear that the justice may only commit the child in the case where the parent is found to be guilty of the offence of not sending his child to school or where, having used all reasonable efforts to get the child to attend school, the child, through wilful misbehaviour, having refused to attend, the justice would have the alternative of committing the child to a school or to the care of a suitable guardian; but only in these cases may the justice commit the child.

Part of the amended section also gives the justice power to have the child brought before him as, in certain circumstances, it may be necessary, in the justice's opinion, for him to have an opportunity of seeing and possibly of speaking to the child.

Does this section operate to extend the discretion of the district justice in regard to the commission of children?

I do not think so. I think it merely clarifies the existing code. If the Deputy will compare it with Section 17 of the original Act, I think he will be of the opinion that it does not extend the powers of the district justice.

Question put and agreed to.

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 5.

New section. In page 11, before Section 22, a new section inserted as follows:—

22.—The Minister shall, before refusing an application for a certificate under Section 5 of the Principal Act in respect of a school or revoking any such certificate in respect of a school, inform the manager or conductor of such school of the ground on which he proposes to refuse the application or revoke the certificate and shall give such manager or conductor a reasonable opportunity of meeting the requirements of the Minister for the purpose of removing the said ground of refusal or revocation.

Amendment No. 5 has, as its purpose, the amendment of Section 5 of the Principal Act. The amendment says that the Minister, before refusing an application for a certificate under Section 5 of the Principal Act in respect of a school, or revoking any such certificate in respect of a school, shall inform the manager or conductor of a school of the ground on which he proposes to refuse the application or revoke the certificate, and that he shall give the manager or conductor a reasonable opportunity of meeting the requirements of the Minister for the purposes of removing the ground of refusal or revocation, whichever the case may be. There is a similar provision in sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Bill, with regard to the revocation of a certificate: the effect of which is that the Minister shall not revoke the certificate until he has informed the parent of the child to whom the certificate relates, and also, if the child is receiving education in a school, the manager or conductor of the school, of the ground on which the Minister proposes to revoke the certificate, and has given the parent and, where appropriate, the manager or conductor a reasonable opportunity of meeting the requirements of the Minister for the purpose of removing the ground of revocation or refusal.

Is there an obligation on the Minister to state the grounds of refusing such a certificate, if applied for by the manager?

Section 4 (2) (b) says that the Minister shall not refuse to give a certificate in respect of a child until he has informed the parent of such child and also, if the child is receiving education in a school, the manager or conductor of such school, of the ground on which he proposes to refuse the certificate and has given such parent and, where appropriate, such manager or conductor, a reasonable opportunity of meeting the requirements of the Minister for the purpose of removing the said ground of refusal.

Question put and agreed to.
Amendments reported and agreed to.
Message to be sent to Seanad Eireann accordingly.
Top
Share