Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Apr 1926

Vol. 7 No. 1

SCHOOL ATTENDANCE BILL, 1925—THIRD STAGE.

The Seanad went into Committee.
Question—"That the Title be postponed and that Sections 1, 2, and 3 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
(1) The parent of every child to whom this Act applies shall, unless there is a reasonable excuse for not so doing, cause the child to attend a national or other suitable school on every day on which such school is open for secular instruction and for such time on every such day as shall be prescribed or sanctioned by the Minister in respect of such day.
(2) Any of the following shall be a reasonable excuse for failure to comply with this section, that is to say:—
(a) that the child has been prevented from attending school by the sickness of the child;
(b) that the child is receiving suitable elementary education in some manner other than by attending a national or other suitable school;
(c) that there is not a national or other suitable school accessible to the child which the child can attend and to which the parent of the child does not object on religious grounds to send the child;
(d) that the child has been prevented from attending school by some other sufficient cause.
(3) Until the year 1936 the following shall also be a reasonable excuse for failure to comply with this section on not more than ten days during the period beginning on the 17th day of March and ending on the 15th day of May next following in any year in respect of a child who has attained the age of twelve years, that is to say, that the child has been prevented from attending school by reason of his having been engaged in light agricultural work for his parent on his parent's land.
(4) Until the year 1936 the following shall also be a reasonable excuse for failure to comply with this section on not more than ten days during the period beginning on the 1st day of August and ending on the 15th day of October next following in any year in respect of a child who has attained the age of twelve years, that is to say, that the child has been prevented from attending school by reason of his having been engaged in light agricultural work for his parent on his parent's land.
(5) A school shall be deemed to be accessible to a child for the purposes of this section if, but only if, either—
(a) the school is situate, in the case of a child who has not attained the age of ten years, within two miles measured from the child's residence along the shortest way lawfully and conveniently available for him or, in the case of a child who has attained the age of ten years within three miles similarly measured; or
(b) there is a suitable means of conveyance to the school available for the child from a point within a reasonable distance from the child's residence.

I move:—

"In Section 4, sub-section (2), to add at the end of the sub-section the words:—

"(e) that the child is receiving instruction or training in the practical work of the business, trade or occupation of his parent or by which he intends to earn his livelihood.

This is my own addition to the reasons I have given for having a child absent himself from school. I think the most important part of the education of any child is instruction or training in the practical work of the business, trade or occupation by which he intends to earn his livelihood when he is attending school. Unless the child commences to do some work at an earlier age than 14 or 16 years I fear he will get a distaste for the work, and that it will be very difficult for him to settle down to proper work in his occupation. When a child commences at an early age to learn how to do some light work it generally happens that he takes an interest in it, and that the work is a pleasure instead of being a task. It is all very well to endeavour to have children get ideas that they are aspiring to a higher grade than that in which they are born. I think it is more desirable that they should realise the actual fact that in order to gain a livelihood in this life the principal thing is that they should be trained in work in the same sphere as that of their parents. As the Bill stands there is a condition that a child should be prevented from attending school by some sufficient cause. I do not know whether the training of the children would be regarded by the District Justice who hears the case as a sufficient reason. I think it is an important reason because there is some work, especially on a farm, that cannot be done efficiently unless the child is trained at a fairly early age.

I regret I must oppose this amendment. I think it is accurate to say that one of the most important subjects that could possibly engage the attention of this House is the subject of education. I think that in the interests of all classes of the community the education of the child ren, whether they be the children of noble lords, or the children of agricultural labourers, should claim the anxious attention of the Legislature, not only in this country, but in all countries in the world. The amendment of Senator Linehan seems to me to contain the idea that farmers' children might be hired out to work for other people, and in these most important years of life in which education is so paramount and so vastly important for their upbringing and future in life, or that they might be engaged working as agricultural labourers instead of availing of the few paltry hours at their disposal for education.

Recently in Cork City there was a very important annual conference of those engaged in primary and secondary education, in which a vast amount of interest was generated. Those of us who had the privilege of attending some of the meetings, and also of reading what took place, could not but be greatly inspired at the keen interest taken by educationists throughout Ireland in putting high ideals before the youth of our country: of trying to have them brought up on a par, at any rate, with the children of some of the great nations of the world. The competition before this country, and Great Britain, and other nations, in the days to come, as we all know, will be keen, and if the agricultural people are not fully qualified and equipped for the battle of life, they will go under and remain as mere agricultural labourers to the end of their days. I know that farming and agriculture is the occupation of the majority of the population of this country, and is in itself the most important industry in Ireland and will remain so. In their own interests, I venture to say, it is important to the farmers and the agriculturists that every hour that can possibly be spared should be devoted to the education of their children. I regret that in Section 2 the age limit of attendance at school is not sixteen instead of fourteen years.

I am surprised that an amendment such as this should be put down to this important measure. As a matter of fact, if this amendment were accepted it would destroy the whole principle of this Bill. If Senators will look at amendment No. 3, which deals with the same matter, they will find that it is urged as a sufficient reason for the child abstaining from school attendance that the child is working at agricultural work. Now the whole principle of this Bill is to see that the children, in this country, shall, at least, get a smattering of education to fit them for their future in life. I think the farming community requires education as much as any other section of the community. Notwithstanding all the pleas that everybody is making to educate the child of the farmer and the farm labourer, it is astonishing that a farmer should come along to sabotage a Bill of this nature which means so much for the future of this country.

Everyone admits, at present, that, no matter what expectation a boy or a girl, a man or a woman, may have, some education is required to enable them to earn their livelihood, and that the most menial occupation, at the present day, requires some education. It is admitted that the limits outlined in this Bill are meagre enough to allow children to obtain sufficient education to become good citizens and to enable them to earn their bread. I sincerely hope that this amendment will be scouted out without further consideration.

I should like to draw the attention of the Seanad to Article I. of the Convention of Geneva which, I understand, was signed by the representative of the Irish Free State:

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

That Article certainly represents the opinion of the great majority of those identified with the teaching of children all over the world, and I do not think the Free State should depart from it. It is very doubtful if it is keeping within the spirit of it, as it is, in view of the exemptions that are given at certain seasons of the year, but I am quite certain the Seanad will not support any resolution which makes further breaches in the Convention of Geneva. I would like to point out to the Seanad again that we are spending on the education of our children what amounts to £1 5s. per head of the population per annum. In England and Scotland they spend about £2 10s. per head of the population per annum. Our trade rival, Denmark, spends what amounts to about £2 15s. per head of the population. In Norway the proportion is about the same. Of course that is counting not only taxes but rates, and shows that already our education is starved. It is certain that our children are going into the battle of life very poorly equipped to face rivals, to put it no higher. In any case the children are going into the battle of life unequipped because enough is not spent on education. The proposal in the amendment is that the inefficient education the children are being given should be made still more inefficient.

I think the character of this amendment is so obviously reactionary to the whole spirit of the Bill that it requires no argument in this enlightened chamber to convince Senators of the futility of adopting it. The matter was discussed at great length in the Dáil. The idea of a child of ten, say the son of a shopkeeper, going behind the counter and being trained in his father's business before he is able to multiply six and a half by seven is to me preposterous. The child of a tailor, learning to sew buttons at ten years of age, would seem to be another suggestion embodied in the amendment, and so on ad lib. Instances might be enumerated of gross anomalies being perpetrated. The whole spirit of the Bill and the object with which it has been introduced would, I should say, be completely nullified if any of the Senator's amendments were accepted. The proposal in amendment No. 4 would mean that there would be irregularity in attendance between the 17th March and the 15th July.

I rise to a point of order. I am only moving the first amendment. I am not moving the others.

Very well. Is it seriously contemplated that a child of ten years of age should be kept at home for the purpose of learning its father's business by slaving at that business? A child of that age is not capable of taking instruction in business matters. Except in very rare instances, a child is not mentally developed at that age to do that—although we are precocious enough in this country—we would want to go to a warmer climate where the human intellect develops more rapidly than it does in this country. The amendment would mean chronic irregularity in attendance, and would necessitate that irregularity throughout the whole period of the school year. Everyone knows that it is not possible for a teacher to divide a class of ten or twelve pupils into three sections owing to the inequality that exists in their progress. What would happen is that vivacious children who attended regularly would be dragged back to the level of those who did not attend, and, as a consequence, would lose interest in their work.

I have some experience of what that means in the North of Ireland. I was teaching in a school where the children attended on alternate days. The matter went even still further. On the days that they attended school they worked from 6 a.m. to 8 a.m., and in the evening after school they worked from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. The parents, unfortunately, were not able to earn sufficient to support their families. The children came to school tired, and, when the teachers were not engaged with them, they slept at every opportunity, especially on days when they had been working in the mornings. I hold that the whole responsibility for much of the misunderstandings that exist between the North and the South of Ireland is due to the slave child system of employment that was in force in Belfast in those years. It was impossible for children to have a wider outlook or to have their intelligence cultivated so as to bring them into line with more progressive countries. That is what the amendment suggested by the Farmers' Party would do here. It has been acknowledged on all sides that farming education is in a most backward condition. We have had complaints from organisers of the Irish Agricultural Society and the Department who go through the country lecturing farmers on up-to-date methods. The organisers say that the failure of these lectures was due to the lack of intellectual cultivation on the part of those who attended them. In some places it was impossible to get these people to do anything that was suggestive of progress. I believe that state of mind would disappear if farmers' children had a better primary education giving that education in rural areas the necessary bias that would lead up to agricultural progress. The amendments would be most reactionary, and would push back the hands of the educational machine in a quarter in which they need to move most rapidly—that is amongst the farmers.

Another argument in addition to those that have been urged against this amendment occurs to me. Supposing that the amendment was in every way desirable. how would it be possible to make sure that the children were, in fact, receiving instruction in their business? Surely you could not in every case rely on the words of the parents that such instruction was taking place. The only way to make sure would be to have a host of inspectors to ensure that the instruction was being given. To me that seems a stronger objection than those already urged.

The very foundation of this Bill for compulsory attendance and to give facilities for the education of children is largely set off by lack of continuity in attendance. Senators with children, who watch their progress from week to week in the schools, know that if they remain away for any time owing to sickness or otherwise, they evince considerable dislike to returning. Their memories have been dulled, and when they return they are not in touch with the class. The teacher of course cannot devote special attention to such children in order to make up the arrears, and the result is that for the balance of the year the pupil is behind the others.

Parents are not disposed to attach that importance to the education of their children that the matter deserves, and compulsion is necessary to make parents do their duty. We find also that owing to the lack of continuity in attendance, when children reach school leaving age and when they should be equipped to avail themselves of the facilities for technical education, the teachers of technical schools complain they have not got the number of pupils that they would like to deal with, largely for the reason that the children have left the primary school at a certain age. When they come along to the technical schools it is found that they have not received sufficient education and are not able to stand the test required or to assimilate the teaching given in the technical schools. That is largely due to the fact that there have been so many breaks in the education of the child up to that point and owing to that lack of continuity in his education he is not sufficiently equipped to take up a technical course. The point does not need any stressing at all. I am surprised that Senator Linehan has moved such an amendment. I presume he speaks for the whole of the farming class, but I question it. I would ask him to withdraw the amendment.

I think there is some misapprehension as regards the effect of this amendment. There is nothing whatever in it about hiring children or about sending them out to employment. It simply means that there will be additional education of a technical character given to the children that will equip them in the way of earning their livelihood when they get to a certain age.

CATHAOIRLEACH

That may be the meaning of it, but undoubtedly it might have the effect pointed out by the Senator, because if he were hired out he would be, in the words of this amendment, receiving instruction or training in the business of his father. If his father was a farmer and hired him out to an adjoining farmer, the boy would be receiving a training there in the business of his father.

The intention is to get instruction from his parents in his parents' business.

CATHAOIRLEACH

That is the obvious intention, but it is not expressed.

I really think this instruction is quite as important as any literary instruction that may be obtained in the school. Take the case, for instance, of a boy who wants to learn how to milk a cow. Unless he starts that work at a very early age he will be very reluctant to start when he is 16 or 17 years of age.

Cows are not milked during school hours.

There are other classes of work for which the child will get a disgust unless he is trained at an early age. We have too much of that in this country—that objection to work. The whole object, apparently, is to get some education that will enable a man to live without working. I think the effect of this amendment would be to get children into the work when they come to that age.

Senator Linehan's amendment has been rather satisfactorily dealt with from my point of view by the various Senators who have spoken on the matter. I hope that they represent the majority of this Assembly. When this Bill was before the Dáil, I had occasion to compliment one Deputy when, after the Second Reading, he was able to propose an amendment, the effect of which would be practically to nullify the Bill. I think I can congratulate Senator Linehan on having surpassed that. This amendment in effect says, "Let us go back on the Second Reading and nullify the effect of the Bill." It makes the Bill, as Senator Kenny and Senator Cummins pointed out, wholly unenforceable. First of all, suppose that the excuses are genuine, then it practically means that the children are to stop away whenever their father has anything for them to do at home in his particular business. On the other hand supposing that the excuse is not genuine, there will be the difficulty pointed out by Senator the Earl of Kerry, that it will be impossible to prove it. The amendment undoubtedly as down on the paper would have the effect of nullifying the Bill as a whole. I am not at all inclined to quarrel with the draft of it. There is something more to object to than the draft. There is the whole idea behind it. The idea behind this amendment if accepted would result not merely in putting us into the position we had before the Bill was introduced, but would put us into the position before 1892, before the existing Act, which has proved by no means satisfactory, was introduced.

I might point out that in the last remark Senator Linehan made, he said that this is an amendment granting exemption from attendance at school, but it is not an amendment to compel children to engage in certain other occupations. I gather from his last speech that what he was aiming at, was that they should attend school, and, in addition, that they should be sent to milk cows in the morning and in the evening and engage in labour of that particular kind. That is not what the amendment even attempted to do, and by no stretch of the imagination could it be brought within the purpose of the amendment. Even if it could, I am not suggesting that it would be accepted. I want to make that clear. I quite agree with the Senator that education is not confined to schools, and I wish the parents and people of the country generally could be convinced of that, but this Bill is confined to schools. It is because we are convinced that sufficient attention is not given to children in the matter of their attendance at school that this Bill is necessary. We want to see the attendance increased. I quite admit what Senator Yeats has said, that if you compare the expenditure on education in this country with the public moneys paid by the several authorities in rates in other countries, we do not prove ourselves to be exceedingly extravagant in these matters. But I think it right to see when we are expending money, even the rather meagre sum we are expending, that we should not try to nullify its effect by doing what Senator Kenny has referred to as the breaking of the continuity of attendance and therefore practically ruin our whole system. Senator Linehan quite rightly called attention to the fact that he was only taking one amendment. But when he said that there was no intention of providing for the possibility of the child being engaged by anybody other than its parent, I wonder whether he had quite forgotten the other amendments he was going to move.

Amendment put and negatived.

I move:—

Section 4, sub-section (3): To delete in line 35 the word "May" and to substitute therefor the word "July."

Sub-section (3) provides that for a period of 10 days from the 17th March to the 15th May children may be kept at home to assist in certain work. I ask that the ten days be within the period from the 17th of March to the 15th of July. The object of that is to enable children to assist their parents at a very important period of the year when they would be of some use to them, and that is the period of thinning and singling out of the root crops. The root crop will probably be fit to be thinned about from the middle of June to the middle of July. In tillage districts that is the period when the assistance of children will be most valuable to their parents. I understand that the period already specified in the Bill from the 17th March to the 15th May would cover other districts where turf-cutting and potato-planting are in operation. My amendment will not increase the number of days on which a child may be kept at home. It merely alters the period, and it would be only ten days in any case. The change of date proposed in the amendment would be of advantage in tillage districts.

I regret I have to oppose this amendment also. The time allotted to the education of youth is altogether too short as it is; a paltry four hours a day is, I believe, the maximum time available. Fixing the date from 17th March to the 15th May means the period of exemption would run over no less than 33 days for each child, and the suggestion of the Senator, I calculate, would mean 75 days. I understand from professional teachers that irregular attendance at school is one of the most objectionable and reprehensible things in the conduct of education. It is most unfortunate that some fixed date cannot be arranged for Easter. I know that school boys from some of the schools across the Channel came over on their holidays to this country after the Easter was over. Extending this date to July would be altogether too long, and I, therefore, regret I have to oppose the amendment.

I am inclined to think this amendment is a reasonable one. We have already the principle maintained and accepted in the Dáil that a certain number of days should be set aside for the purpose of allowing children to assist their parents in the farms. None of the advanced educationists in this assembly ever dissented from that point of view. The only argument that may be advanced against it is as regards the question of continuity, but continuity is already broken by the Bill. If it is a great advantage to the farmer, or whoever it may be, to employ his child three days in July rather than three days in May, I think it is a concession the legislature should allow. There is no doubt that the argument advanced by Senator Linehan is quite right. June is undoubtedly the period in the year in which a small child could be very usefully employed in the operations he describes.

In my view it is not necessary for his argument or mine to consider whether it is right or not to employ a child on a farm under 14 years of age. The only question is, whether having accepted the principle that a child is entitled to be employed for ten days on its parents' farm, that concession should be given in July rather than in March, April or May. I think it is probable that from the point of view of the child June or July would be much better than March or April. He will then have warm sunshine on him, and he will be better for the violet rays. It does not interfere with his school attendance, as it is permitted to him to absent himself for ten days, but whether his absence occurs during the month of May, June or July, or any other month, will not effect the issue. Continuity is broken, and the period of the break of the continuity would not interfere with the purpose of the Bill as it stands. I have pleasure in supporting the amendment.

Is not the whole issue a question as between the potato and the turnip? Under the Bill ten days have been given to the child from the 17th March, which I think most people will look upon as the date when potatoes are planted. Senator Linehan's amendment is supposed to cover the thinning of turnips. As far as I can see, the question is as to whether the planting of potatoes is a more important thing than the thinning of the turnips. I should myself give the vote in favour of the potato.

I oppose this on the ground that it is extending the period of concentration of study by two months. Any farmer, I think, in any part of Ireland who sets about his work in time would have the bulk of his farm work done by the 15th May. Extending the period of irregularity of attendance from the 15th May to the 15th July would be extending it over a very vital period in a child's school life. Promotions take place at the end of June. If a child is careless in his attendance up to the last week in June, the desire will come upon him to remain, perhaps, in the same class with perfect complacency the next year. If he does not get a fair chance of putting final touches to his preparation for what is looked upon as the great annual test in the school year, that child becomes dissatisfied. It would not be in keeping with human nature if he found himself treated at the end of the school year by his parents in this indifferent way in the matter of education, and he would say to himself: "I will take it easy another year in this class," thus cultivating a habit most injurious to that child's future. Children go into the new standards in the month of July. If a parent who is, say, in the turnip line should take it into his head to keep a child, or his whole family, away from school during the first fortnight of July and concentrate them on thinning turnips during that period, the whole year is practically ruined for them, because they are not there to get the initial stages of the programme they will have to study in the coming year.

We all know how necessary it is to build on a solid foundation. The child who is absent during these opening days cannot make progress with the rest of his class and is left behind, and he has no desire to study when he finds himself in such an invidious position. The consequence is that he is trying for the next six months to build upon a foundation that cannot be properly laid, if a teacher is doing justice to the other pupils who are regular in attendance. Then, again, new time must be taken into consideration. In the present day I think there is ample scope for a child's energies from 3 o'clock or 3.30 in the evening until 6 or 7. We hear that it is necessary for the farmers to wait until the day is well aired and the grass well dried before any work can be done in the harvest, and that it is often mid-day before any effective work can be done. Well, midday and three o'clock are not so far apart, and I think the superfluous energies of any child capable of doing work on a farm will be used up more effectively from 3 o'clock to 7 o'clock, than they would in the earlier portion of the day. It is extraordinary what a lack of unanimity seems to exist amongst farmers in this matter. If my memory serves me right, I believe Deputy Gorey stated in the Lower House that the help given in the spring time by children is practically negligible. He was backed up on that occasion, I understand, by Deputy Heffernan. Now, it would be well if the farmer Deputies of the Dáil and Senators should hold a council of war, occasionally, when they intend to attack educational progress, and at least show to us that they have considered the problem seriously, and that they are unanimous in their opposition.

I do not think there is anything further for me to say except to point out that this amendment extends the period of irregularity to the particular time of the year when regularity is most essential for the successful working of the schools and the advancement of the children. This is the time when irregularity begets indifference on the part of the children and discourages teachers.

I hope the Seanad will not pass this amendment or any other amendment which would tend to make the administration of this Bill difficult. I believe it is to the interest of the whole country that this Bill should be effectively carried out. Senator Bennett made a somewhat plausible case, namely, that because we have agreed to what I consider an objectionable section—at least the Dáil has agreed to an objectionable section, and we have not put down any amendment against it—that we should now agree to more objectionable sections. I should also like to draw the attention of Senators to sub-section (2) of the same section by which you will find that in this section we are providing excuses for the school children not to attend school, a thing most of us prefer not to do if possible.

In that section we find it is a good excuse "that the child has been prevented from attending school by some other sufficient cause." That is bad enough, and there is the further excuse by which the child may be employed at home for quite a long period of the summer. The Senator who moved this has a further amendment which provides that he need not be employed at home—that he may be, in fact, employed elsewhere. All these things would add greatly to the difficulty of working the Bill, and I hope the Seanad will not pass these amendments. I do not think these amendments are in the interests of the farming community. I would like to point out that we are told that because the Dáil has agreed to this that we should extend it. The Dáil has apparently reluctantly agreed to it. It is apparent that they looked upon it as an objectionable thing which is more or less necessary for the time being. I hope this amendment will not pass.

I do not intend to give a silent vote on this matter. It is perfectly notorious that the unprogressive people are those who take advantage of every relaxation and every possible chance of withdrawing their children from school. This amendment is not in the interests of national progress and, consequently, I hope it will not find any support in this assembly. I shall vote against it.

The chief point about these ten days following the 17th March is that they should not coincide with the time about the examination. Now the child might suggest to its parents that he was disposed to remain at home during this particular time of the examination. I think the parent might fall into the trap and I think it might not be amiss to limit the clause to this: "ten days, not being examination days." I suggest that.

I doubt if Senator Cummins is quite wise, or if he is not too optimistic in expecting the same iron discipline in the Farmers' Party as there is in the Labour Party. Otherwise I agree with what he said. I had doubts about putting this section in the Bill, and I may say as the Minister for Education I had to blush for putting it in, but as the representative of farmers, at least of a farming community, I find it necessary to make some provision in this matter on behalf of the farmers owing to the economic state of the country. That is the reason the provision is there. Now, that being so, we find that this is the position: Take the case that was particularly in our minds and that was argued in the Dáil, namely, the case not of the person in the potato line or the turnip line if I may quote Senator Guinness, but I take the case of the ordinary small farmer who was not in any line but who had to live.

There was an effort to provide for his economic needs, and it was felt that there were certain periods of the year when it would become a matter of urgent necessity for him to keep his children at home to do urgent work. Now, the two classes of urgent work that we consider so, would be the planting of potatoes in the springtime and the gathering of the harvest. Hence the two exemptions—the two limitation periods. It was not so much the fact of useful work capable of being done, but the urgency of this work. We felt that if a favourable opportunity were lost in the springtime it would damage chiefly the economic position of the child, and hence the exemptions. If one takes the case brought forward by Senator Linehan, the thinning of turnips, I suggest that there is not the same urgency about that as there might be in taking advantage of a couple of fine days in the spring or harvest time. Supposing the labours of the child were necessary—I am not discussing the merits of that question—there are the Saturdays and there are, for instance, the long evenings in the summer, in June and July. There are even the advantages of the summer time.

All that goes to the advantage of thinning turnips. Remember, the person we had in our minds was not the man with many acres of turnips to thin, but the small farmer, and it seemed to us that if we were making an exemption it could be made only where necessary, because if you extend this exemption to ten days over the whole period you are doing something more than amplifying the principle. In connection with that, the people who have the enforcement of the Act, the Gárda Síochána, have to extend their vigilance in this matter, and it is one which is extremely difficult to control. They have to extend the period months beyond what they otherwise would have to extend it, and consequently it makes the control of the school on behalf of the teachers exceedingly difficult. Again, you have the break in continuity. We are allowing the break in that continuity, but we do not want to extend it more than is necessary or justifiable. It is a question between the potato and the turnip, and the reason we voted for the potato is that it is a vital matter for the potato. It is not so vital that the turnip should be thinned either this week or any other week. That is practically the whole case.

Amendment put and declared lost.

I move:—

"In Section 4, sub-section (4) to delete all after the word ‘work' in line 47 to the end of the sub-section."

I do not know whether the Seanad has any views on this matter, but it seems to me the words are necessary. It is suggested that we are sailing very close to the wind. Personally, I think we are keeping on the proper side so far as this matter is concerned. If these words are deleted I am surprised that Senator Linehan should move it, because he said he did not intend that these people should get vocational instruction from people other than their parents.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Question—"That Section 4 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Sections 5 to 23 agreed to.
SECTION 24.
(1) The Minister may by order from time to time apply the provisions of this Act to children or any class of children who have attained the age of fourteen years and have not attained the age of sixteen years.

I move:—

In Section 24, sub-section (1). To add at the end of the sub-section the words:—

"and in particular may by such order apply the provisions of this Act to children who have attained the age of fourteen years and have not attained the age of sixteen years for the purpose of compelling the attendance of such children at a National or other suitable and accessible school in which instruction is from time to time given to boys in manual instruction and to girls in domestic economy during the hours in which such instruction is being given for so many days of the period or periods of the year during which such instruction is given in such school as shall be prescribed by such order."

CATHAOIRLEACH

The Minister in charge of the Bill has called my attention to the fact that this amendment contains reference to "A National or other suitable and accessible school," and he has asked me to consider whether that is not outside the scope of the Money Resolution in this particular Bill, because that Money Resolution is confined to ensuring the attendance of children at elementary schools. I do not know exactly what an elementary school is, that is whether there is any regular strict definition of it or not, but it would be safer for you to change your amendment to "attendance of such children at an elementary school." Then you bring yourself within the terms of your resolution.

There is another matter. If you look at the last five lines you will find that you have the words "such instruction is given" three times. I suggest you should make it read "During the hours for so many days of the period or periods of the year during which such instruction is given." In other words, you eliminate one of those tiresome repetitions.

EARL of WICKLOW

I agree, and am very much indebted to you. I put the amendment on paper at the request of the Technical Education Authorities. I was advised that it was impossible, within the ambit of this Bill, to obtain our object, because, as you pointed out, it applies to elementary schools and not technical schools. Our object was to have children required to attend technical schools for a certain number of hours every week. The alteration of the amendment, as you pointed out, is the nearest we could go to the terms of this Bill. It has been pointed out to us that there is no question more important than the question of education, and in the whole education question I venture to think nothing is more important than that which teaches a boy or girl a trade and makes him self-supporting. For my part, I think I should rather see a boy or girl a good carpenter or cook than taught all the learning and erudition which scholarship can teach. I even venture to think that the learning of a trade might be regarded as of greater importance than scholarship in a subject the utility of which has lately been so much discussed, the learning of the Irish language. As I pointed out, our object is only partially obtained by the amendment on the paper. I hope, nevertheless, if for any reason the Minister objects to it and lays before the Seanad reasons, sufficiently cogent, for its rejection, at any rate, that he will be able to tell us if he will give the subject of our desire his consideration. Perhaps at no very distant date he may produce a Bill by which all children in this country will be compelled to undergo a certain amount of technical education.

I would gladly support Senator the Earl of Wicklow's amendment if I thought it was possible for the Minister to do anything of the kind suggested. To my mind, it does not appear to be so, and would necessitate, I think, the introduction of a separate Bill. In any case the Minister has power under this Bill to compel children throughout the country between the ages of fourteen and sixteen to attend school. I appeal to him now, as I did on the last occasion, not to schedule areas in which this Act should be imposed, but to schedule the whole of Ireland as an area in which compulsory attendance up to the age of sixteen shall be enforced. That power we have, and the Minister will soon learn from the country that there is no definite and distinct opposition to that proposal. I believe personally there is not, and I claim to be acquainted very generally with three or four counties of Leinster and some in Connaught. I worked in both. I believe that opposition would not be forthcoming to any extent. That would overcome the difficulties of the situation with which the amendment of the Earl of Wicklow is faced.

I think it is deplorable to have boys and girls between the ages of fourteen and sixteen wandering about the towns and villages in Ireland while technical education is there at their doors if they would only avail of it. I would gladly support that if it is within the compass of the Bill to do so. I trust the Minister will at an early date take steps to limit this growing evil, by the introduction of a short Bill.

I would support the amendment if it could be incorporated in the Bill. Some few years ago a firm with which I am connected had occasion to look for experts in the business, and we found that a great many of the applicants for the appointment were men and women who had been through the technical schools. We expect great things from the Shannon scheme. No doubt opportunities will be plentiful if they can be availed of, but except we have persons trained in industrial and technical production these opportunities will pass our people by. I do not know whether this amendment can be incorporated in the Bill. I think it is optional with the Minister to put this in force, but I hope that he will take some opportunity of coordinating this in a section of the Bill.

I trust that the suggestion I made that the amendment did not come within the scope of the Bill will not be interpreted by Senator the Earl of Wicklow as any opposition to what is at the back of his amendment. I did not know whether it came within the scope of the Bill, because I think the Bill, and the Money Resolution upon which it is founded, limits us to the attendance of children at elementary schools. I have no power to go beyond that, and, therefore, I thought the amendment was outside the scope of the Bill.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Is there no domestic economy and manual instruction in the elementary school?

I am coming to that. We have power under the Bill to extend the ages from fourteen to sixteen. As the circumstances of the different areas permit we can, in such areas, extend the ages from fourteen to sixteen and change the programme for that particular area. It was intended for the normal pupil who had reached the age of fourteen. If we make his attendance compulsory, as we are about to do, it was intended that the training he would get from fourteen to sixteen should be much more of a vocational character than in the school that he was attending up to the age of fourteen. For instance, in agricultural areas the programme might include—and it is a matter for each particular district, and what they require—Irish, English agricultural history, geography, rural science, applied mathematics, mensuration, agricultural calculations, manual instruction and training, singing and drawing and so on.

What about domestic economy?

I am coming to that. Instead of applied mathematics and mensuration, and manual instruction, for girls, we would have courses of domestic economy, cookery, needlework, physiology and hygiene. That is for rural areas. For the town areas you would have something different. You would not have agricultural history and geography, but instead you would have commercial history and geography, and ordinary science would be substituted for rural science, and you would have manual instruction.

There is possibly one weakness in this Bill which comes into the second sub-section of Section 24, providing various powers for the Minister. It does not give powers to limit instruction, attendance at which might be compulsory, to any of these subjects. If the Seanad thinks there should be power also given to the Minister to limit or not, in certain areas, between the ages of fourteen and sixteen, the instruction on certain subjects such as the Minister thinks fit, I could bring in an amendment of that kind upon the Report Stage. I might say this Act applies to the whole of Ireland up to the age of sixteen except So and So, but I object to saying that the Act shall apply to the whole of Ireland, and then straight away exempt the whole of Ireland from the Act.

There are very few places where you could put immediately into effect a School Attendance Bill. There are other places less difficult and more ready to receive this exemption up to 16. In the city of Dublin and of Cork you might have a fair prospect of success if you made the Bill compulsory up to the age of 16. But apart from the financial difficulties involved, we would come into conflict with the economic conditions if we were to apply a regulation of that kind in Connemara or Donegal, or in portions of the County Kerry. I think it is better to have the law and enforce it than to make a gesture, and yet have the weakness not to enforce it. I prefer having the power, gradually, to extend the Act and insist upon its enforcement rather than to pretend that we are in a better position than we are actually and allow laxity. I think it is better that we should gradually advance, as inquiry shows we are justified in doing, rather than merely say we are in a splendid condition.

Between now and the Report Stage I would consider the introduction of an amendment to sub-section (2), to the effect that in elementary schools the Minister will also have power to limit the subjects at which certain pupils may be compelled to attend.

CATHAOIRLEACH

My own view is that so long as you confine the amendment to these schools it is quite in order. I am not saying anything on the merits of it at all, nor anything to prevent your yielding to the suggestion offered by the Minister which probably meets your purposes for the moment, but I wish you to understand, subject to inserting the word "elementary," that your motion, in my opinion, is clearly in order, because it is quite consistent—in fact the Minister admits that—with the other powers he has in Section 24 to extend the time for the purpose of enabling a pupil to get the very thing you want. I am not dealing with the merits of your amendment now, and you can say whether you can accept the suggestion made by the Minister or not. When you have seen the amendment that the Minister proposes to bring in, if you are not satisfied, you can bring the matter up again on the Report Stage. Perhaps that would be most convenient.

EARL of WICKLOW

I have to thank the Minister for what he has said, and after that I should be very unwise to press the amendment. As far as I understand the Minister, he proposes to take power in the Bill, with the assistance of the amendment to be proposed, to deal with children between 14 and 16 attending domestic economy classes.

CATHAOIRLEACH

The Minister has power in the case of children who have attained the age of 14 but who have not exceeded that age. It is perfectly certain that the course of study for them might include domestic economy or manual instruction. What the Minister has offered to consider is whether he would not put in an amendment to limit instruction during these years—14 to 16—in the special subjects in which you are interested.

EARL of WICKLOW

I am not particularly concerned in them, but I will leave the matter in the Minister's hands, so that he can consider the question of having a certain amount of compulsion. He has shown me that he is sympathetic with the idea.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 24, 25, 26 and 27, the Schedule and Title, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Seanad went out of Committee.
Top
Share