Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Feb 1936

Vol. 20 No. 27

Private Business. - School Attendance Bill, 1936—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

This is a small Bill. The object of it is to renew two sub-sections in the 1926 School Attendance Act—sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 4. The object of these two sub-sections was to give a certain concession to the farming community in respect of the attendance of their children at school during the spring and harvest periods. The effect of this concession was that for not more than ten days in the period beginning on the 17th March and ending on the 15th May, and secondly, the period beginning on the 1st August and ending on the 15th October, as regards the absence of children from school it would be regarded as a legitimate excuse if the children were working at light agricultural work on their parents' land and for their parents. The concession in question has been in operation since 1926. On the 1st January of the present year it ceased to have effect, so that the question arose as to whether we should re-enact this particular concession or not. Having examined the question, I have come to the conclusion that it should remain for a further period of years. I have no doubt but that many people will claim that there is no need for this concession, and that any loophole which is offered to parents to enable them to keep their children from school, no matter how they themselves may feel about it, and no matter how reasonable they might regard the circumstances which entitled them to do so, would cause considerable feeling among persons interested in education. They will claim that such a concession, making as it does a certain break in school attendance at two periods of the year, and causing perhaps a certain amount of disorganisation, no matter how small, is a thing that ought to be avoided; the chief argument against it being that it is necessary that children should be kept at school regularly, and that unless there are overwhelming reasons for it, it is a very bad principle to give an exemption of this kind.

That is one side of the case. The other side is that in 1926, when the original Act was being passed through the Oireachtas, the matter received very full consideration. I think it would be describing the position fairly by saying that on that occasion an agreement was reached between the representatives of the farmers who claimed that such an exemption should be given and the Minister in charge of the Bill at the time. It may be said that this is a transitional provision and that it should come to an end. While, no doubt, it was claimed at the time that the provision would be transitional, and that it was specially necessary in view of the fact that a School Attendance Act, somewhat drastic in character, of which the country had no previous experience, was being put into operation, I do not think that that can be offered as a reason why we should not continue the concession if we think there are sound reasons for it. The economic necessity which obliges small farmers, in particular, at certain periods of the year to keep their children from school still exists, and, perhaps, in view of the policy of increased tillage that is now being pursued, there is more need than ever for small farmers to have the assistance of their children. To assume that they can get that assistance during week-ends or vacation periods would not be correct, because the necessities of farming often mean that help must be got very hurriedly. There is no proof whatever that the moment when the farmer needs this particular help for two or three days, or perhaps longer, either in connection with the spring or harvest work, is going to fall at a week-end or a holiday period.

In addition to the economic necessity which I believe exists, there is also a sound educational principle, which is widely recognised, in the matter of giving children outdoor experience of this kind. For example, in connection with our vocational schools, Senators are aware of the policy that is being pursued in extending them throughout the country. Those who have knowledge of rural conditions will agree that it would be very advisable indeed if the children attending those schools could have some actual experience of gardening, of rural work and of agricultural processes. In many countries it is agreed that this type of light agricultural work may be recognised as a type of practical vocational instruction. The Department of Education here recognises it as such. An exemption for children who are working on their parents' land doing light agricultural work at certain periods of the year is recognised in a number of European countries. For example, there is a similar exemption in Belgium, Finland, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and France.

Having regard to our experience here, we feel that on balance there is a case for continuing the concession. The only other point is that farmers may take undue advantage of this concession. I do not think that they will do so, because the statistics which I have seen indicate that only about 35 per cent. of the children who might have taken advantage of this concession have done so: that is to say, 34,000 or 35,000 children out of, approximately, a total of 97,000. That figure of 35 per cent. includes all the children absent from school for any period. It does not necessarily mean those only who were absent for the two periods of ten days each, but includes all those absent for any period, even for a single day. I should also explain that this concession only applies to children over 12 years of age. With regard to children under 12 years of age, there will be no exemption for them.

I should like to point out also that, in accordance with representations and strong pressure that has been brought forward in the lower House, I have already altered the Bill slightly to the extent of reducing the period of five years, which it was intended it should run, to a period of four years. I think that, if we were to reduce it any further, it is doubtful whether it would be worth while re-enacting the sub-sections at all.

The great objection that I see to this Bill, apart from the question of encouraging irregularity, is that it operates at two particular seasons of the year which are of vital importance in the educational career of a child. I refer first to the end of the season; that is, from the 17th March to the 15th May. That is the termination of the school year, practically, which ends in the month of June, and a break one month before the termination of the school year is a very serious drawback to the educational progress of the child. That is the month for revision and recapitulation of all the work the child has done during the year. If that month of May is cut out, as it has been cut out in this Bill, it affects the ambition of the child very seriously. Examinations are coming on in June, at the end of the year, and if the child's studies are interrupted and a break of ten or 15 days, and perhaps more, allowed in the month of May, the child's chance of revising the work during the year is very slight, and he is not in a position to compete with other children in the school. In consequence of that, his ambition is dulled and the work of the year is destroyed to a great extent by that break. I think that that destruction is particularly to be regretted where it takes place in the case of the children of small farmers who, for various reasons, such as the distance of their homes from the school and the fact that they have to help at home before they go to school in the mornings and after they come home in the evenings, might be ranked as one of the most irregular classes in attending school.

I admit that there is much to be said in favour of the help the children can give their parents on the farms at that period of the year, especially where the farmer is not in a position to pay wages and has to depend on his own family for help, but I think it is particularly regrettable that the children of farmers should be deprived of the continuity that should exist in their instruction at school. They work very hard in the mornings, very often, before coming to school, and sometimes they have to walk a long distance to school. They have to help with the work in the evenings when they come back from school. In that way these children have not the same opportunities as the town children, who have no such work to do at home and who just get up in the mornings and have only a short distance to go to the school. That period of the year will affect the child's progress very much. Then, again, there is the second period, which begins in the month of July. Very often, holidays occur at that period, and the work of the school year proper begins in August and September after the holidays. Again, unfortunately, that is the very time, when he has started on his year's study and when he is laying the foundation for the whole year's work, when this break can take place. In other words, you see that the foundation is badly laid and that the edifice of the whole structure suffers as a consequence, and then, at the end of the year, when the roof, as it were, is being put on the edifice of his work, another break comes. I think that that is a great disaster, and I do not think that eventually the small farmers will benefit by this break, because of the continued disturbance of the studies of their children over a period of three or four years.

Only two years.

Well, all right, two years; but they are the most vital two years of their lives, educationally, as I am sure the Senator will admit. It is the period when they are mastering the instruments of study, so to speak, and the whole work of the year is dislocated. I am glad to hear from the Minister's figures that the farmers do not avail of this to a great extent.

Thirty-five per cent. of them did.

Well, I can say that, not only the small farmers, who were in need, availed of it, but farmers who were not in need of it, and who could well afford to do without it, also took advantage of the exemption, I am sorry to say, and kept their children at home for very trifling causes. It is rather pitiable to go into some country schools at that time of the year and find that the senior classes have completely disappeared off the roll at the beginning of the school year, and again approaching the end of the school year. That is the great fault that I have to find with this measure. I agree that the Minister has made a very strong case but I say that that part is very bad apart from the big principle involved of encouraging irregularity.

What surprises me is that the Minister should come her with a Bill of this kind in a confiden way, as though he were doing some thing good for education. He is th Minister for Education, and yet he ha come to the House with a Bill of kind, evidently glorying in the that he has brought in such a Bill. predecessor, in dealing with this Bill i 1926 in this House, said that he ha doubts about putting the section i question in the Bill, and that, a Minister for Education, he had to blush for putting it in. He made a concession owing to the pressure of the small farmers in certain localities, however. The present Minister now comes in with a note of pride and joy that he should be introducing this kind of a Bill, and he has the audacity, I might say, to put it forward on the plea that it is assisting vocational education.

The mill owners used to say the same thing when they got half-timers in. Only last week I heard a very reputable gentleman in the industrial world claiming publicly, under oath, that it was necessary to get young persons—more or less children—to do work in brick-making because they were more adaptable and had to be adapted to the trade, and that if they got older persons to handle bricks they lost something. That kind of plea can be used as an excuse for abuses of all the protection that has been afforded to children in the field of education. To talk about taking children and putting them into the fields for ten days in the spring and ten days in the summer, on the plea that they are getting some kind of vocational education, is the equivalent of saying that the children, who used to be taken 100 years ago into the coal mines to learn coal-hewing, were being given vocational education. The Minister takes his 34,000 to 36,000 out of 97,000. I think that 97,000 is an exaggeration, but let us take that figure. The Minister says that 35 per cent. of those who may be affected by these provisions have taken advantage of them, and he thinks there is nothing to deplore about that. In going through the debates in the Dáil when the original Bill was brought forward, if my memory serves me right, I think the plea was that, because of the conditions prevailing in certain counties, such as Donegal, perhaps, or Mayo, and some of the other counties, where small farmers predominated, it was necessary to have some relaxation of the stringency of the original Bill because of the need in these particular instances. Yet we find, from the Minister's statement, that 35 per cent, of the whole of the agriculturists in the country have taken advantage of this relaxation.

Thirty-five per cent. of the children.

Yes. I mean 35 per cent. of the children of the agriculturists of the country, which makes it even worse, because a very large proportion of the country is not affected by this. I suggest for the Minister's consideration that it is because elements that were not expected to take advantage of it have, in fact, taken advantage of it, and I suggest that the growth of the beet cultivation, and perhaps the development of wheat growing, has encouraged more agriculturists to take advantage of this relaxation. The Minister, as Minister for Education, ought to be up in arms against any extension of these special facilities. The Minister says that, because of the growth of the area under tillage, it is more and more necessary to grant this concession. Is this an additional price that has to be paid for the tillage policy? I am asking the Minister to look at this from the point of view of education and not from the point of view of the Minister for Agriculture who is thinking solely of the economics of agriculture. Is the Minister prepared to defend as an educational policy this relaxation of the provisions of the Act which were definitely and deliberately sought for by his predecessor to ensure for the 200 school days of the year regularity of attendance in all parts of the country, urban and rural? That was the aim, and certain relaxation were granted for ten days in the spring and ten days in the autumn. Though it was expected that quite a small proportion of the children of the farmers would take advantage of it, we find that no less than 35 per cent. have taken advantage of it.

I suggest to the Minister that, if he is talking about the vocational value of this concession, the child of the agricultural labourer is entitled to vocational education. I certainly do not want the Minister to extend these relaxations to the children of the agricultural labourers, but if the relaxations are of value educationally, he, as Minister for Education, should be seeking to extend these exemptions to the children of the agricultural labourers. The Minister, however, very wisely, does not do that, because he knows, as an educationist, that, as a matter of fact, it is bad policy.

The Minister has quoted, as he did in the Dáil, certain exemptions in other countries. If he had gone a little further in his inquiry, he would find that in most of those countries where exemptions are given, it is provided that the child must have passed a certain standard or have obtained a certain certificate of competence in his educational training. If one goes to the experience of other countries, some of them make a test of educational competence before they grant the exemption, but there are other countries which make no exemption. Even some of those he has spoken of have a higher exemption age than is now suggested here.

The purport of the Bill is to continue the period which, under the original Act, was to be an experimental period. It was decided that the experiment should be retained until the year 1936, and without any doubt, the majority of the Dáil at that time, whatever the Seanad may have said, believed that it would expire at the end of that period. Now the Minister comes along to ask for its extension, and he asks for it in the name of education. That is surely the last thing a Minister for Education should seek to do. Only one argument of any weight has been used in the course of the debate, and it was the argument used by the Minister himself when he pointed to the necessity, particularly in the County Mayo, where he said so large a number of small farmers leave the country in the spring time, to go as migrants, their families at home having to put in the crops. There may be something in that, but it may be put against it that the Easter period and the summer holiday period give ample time for the work on the farm that might conceivably require to be done by boys and girls of 12 to 14 years of age.

I can see the possibility that a case can be made in respect of those particular districts of which the Minister spoke, in view of the circumstances surrounding those areas, and because of the fact that the Easter holiday period does not coincide with the particular period of the year when the work has to be done. The school holiday period cannot be altered in the early part of the year to fit in with agricultural needs, but in the latter part of the year, the holiday period does, in fact, coincide with agricultural needs in most parts of the country. Looking at the matter impartially, I can see no case at all made in the Dáil for this exemption of ten days in addition to the ordinary holidays in the latter part of the year.

If this Bill gets a Second Reading I will propose on the Committee Stage that this ten days' exemption should be confined only to the spring and not allowed during the autumn. I hope that the House, in fact, will not give this Bill a Second Reading, and that the Minister's Department will adjust itself to the intentions of the original Act that compulsory school attendance up to the age of 14 should be given effect to in respect of all the children of the country. There are plenty of exemptions besides this and from an educational standpoint, it seems to me that the case made by educationists in 1926 and repeated now, is a sound one, that where you take some of the boys or girls away from the upper classes, you are not merely damaging the educational prospects of those boys and girls who are absent from school, but you are destroying the class as a whole, the remainder of the children in school being affected detrimentally in their education. I believe to-day, as I believed in 1926, that the school as a whole should be closed if there is any demand for exemption from attendance on the part of the farmers' children at any particular time. Whatever may be said for this Bill from the point of view of economics, there is nothing to be said at all for it from the point of view of education.

As a matter of interest, might I be allowed to ask whether the holiday period is statutory or given at the option of the teacher?

It is at the option of the manager.

The two previous speakers have, no doubt, made a strong case from their point of view, but it struck me as extraordinary that they could be so far removed from the outlook of the farmer in making those arguments. When this Act originally made attendance compulsory at schools there is no doubt about it, nothing was more hurtful to the farmers, particularly to the small farmers.

The farmer has a lot of difficulties to contend with and one of the primary difficulties is that of getting in his crops at a particular time when weather conditions may be against him. At such a time, nobody can give more help to relieve the difficulties of the small farmer in getting in his crops than those youngsters. When the Compulsory School Attendance Order was made, this exemption concession was very much appreciated and it is very much appreciated now that the Minister for Education proposes to continue it.

With regard to the argument that it is of assistance to vocational education, I am in agreement with the contention that it is of very considerable value in the education of the children. Any boy or girl who intends to take up farming work cannot be better occupied than at work on the farm at the earliest possible age. In demonstration of that, you have the sons of farmers better-off in life taking a more extended education at secondary schools and, as a consequence of those years spent away in secondary schools, when they come home to take up work on the farm there is no doubt about it, their plight is a pitiful one and they have to work at great disadvantages, unlike the boy who has been brought up on the land from his young days. That boy is a better farmer and knows more about it than the man who has got all the modern education facilities of the secondary schools. It is practical experience that is going to make good, sound, prosperous farmers, and the earlier a boy starts in that work the better it will be for himself in the future. The days which a boy takes off to put down the crops on his father's farm are of the greatest educational value to him. He sees the practical results of what he has done on the land and he sees the fruits of his own labour in helping his father to put down his crops when they come over the ground. I have known youngsters to appreciate that fact. It gave them a greater practical grip on the reality of things than they would get in the school. I am wholly in favour of the exemption particularly in respect of my own county of Mayo to which, as Senator Johnson pointed out, it is particularly applicable, and I do say that work on the farm is the best thing in the world for any youngster, no matter what profession he may go in for in the future.

We have repeatedly heard in this House about the woes of the farmers. After listening to Senator MacEllin's speech, I am beginning to think that there is something in this cry that we have heard about their woes. If the future of agriculture, the basic industry of this country, has to depend on young children between 12 and 14 years of age being allowed to stay away from school for ten days in the spring and ten days in the autumn to give them a sound education in farming, I begin to despair of the agricultural industry. Everybody knows that the children with whom this Bill deals are farmers' children who see every day of their lives the things that Senator MacEllin wants them to see. It is not necessary to give them ten days from St. Patrick's Day to enable them to see the crops beginning to come over the ground. They are looking at that all the day long and it cannot be so essential to the farming industry of this country that we should deprive these children of the most necessary part of their education in the schools.

It has been pointed out by Senator Cummins, who ought to be an authority on this particular subject, with all respect to the Minister, who is also an authority on education, that the time approaching the examination period is the most important period in the school life of the children. I do agree with what Senator Johnson has said: that the case the Minister has made that, on the western seaboard of Ireland, where, unfortunately, for economic reasons, the small farmers themselves have to go across the water at the sowing season, in order to raise the wherewithal to keep their little homes going for the rest of the year, a case can be made for the help being retained at home. I admit, and anybody who looks at it from a strictly impartial point of view must admit, that there is a case there, but, unfortunately, in dealing with a particular type of case like that, the net is opened wide and in very many cases where there is no necessity for it, the children take advantage of it, by taking these ten days' "holliers," as they call them. There is no reason whatever why this ten days' exemption should be granted at the harvest time. It is within the province of a school manager, I understand, to regulate the holidays in particular schools, and there is no reason whatever why in those districts the summer holiday period should not coincide with the period of harvesting operations when the ten days would be allowed.

We must consider the future of the children and we must consider that, heretofore in this country, the children of the poor working farmer, of the artisan and of the working class people got practically no education at all. I remember reading 30 years ago a statement made by a very patriotic Irishman, who was quoting what a patriotic man in another country said, that we must spend a terrible lot of money on education because we are so poor. Lack of education was the reason for that poor state and we know that in this country we have suffered more from lack of education than from anything else. I think it behoves every one of us to do everything possible to see that the future generation of young men and women will get every possible educational advantage, so far as it lies in our power, and we must see that they take advantage of the educational facilities at their disposal. I agree with the remarks of Senator Johnson and if the Minister would agree to delete that portion of the Bill which relates to the harvesting season, we would not divide the House on the question, but we will certainly divide the House unless we get an understanding to that effect.

Anyone listening to the speech of the Minister should be convinced, without further argument, of the necessity for the Bill. He has stated very clearly and concisely the necessity for it, and if it was necessary to insert this provision in the 1926 Act to help the farmers at that time, will any member of the Labour Party, or any other Party, say it is not necessary to-day, when farmers are in a depressed and deplorable condition and unable to pay wages to have their farms cultivated? That is one reason for this Bill, if there was no other. But there are several others. Senator Farren and Senator Johnson commented on the proposed exemption of ten days in the spring and ten days in the autumn. Are they aware that that period may be the only time the farmer, and particularly the small farmer, has for getting in his potatoes? Boys from 12 to 14 years of age are more suitable for planting potatoes than adults, and by giving this exemption they may possibly assist a farmer to get in the crop which will help to feed him and his family and keep them from hunger in the other months of the year. Is that not a more important matter than the ten days they would lose from school?

The Minister very wisely said, and any man who has any experience of youngsters who have been put to work under the conditions to which he referred, must admit, that boys who are trained on the farm from the ages of 12 to 14 years and made do that sort of light work become thorough experts at their work when they grow older. Planting potatoes in the spring and thinning turnips in the autumn is work which boys from 12 to 14 years can do. August is the autumn, and in many parts of the country is the period in which turnips are thinned, so let Senator O'Hanlon make no joke about it.

I am only enjoying myself.

Do not mind him.

He does not know anything about it. I support the Bill and I do not believe that it will interfere with the poor man's son, to whom reference has been made. The farmer has as much regard for the education of his family as anybody else, and he will not keep them at home unless it is absolutely necessary. For that reason I support the Bill, and I think we ought to be grateful to the Minister for having that consideration for the farmer which the Executive Council has not shown in other respects.

This is not one of those Bills in which there is no room for differences of opinion. We have heard some differences of opinion expressed. I do not know whether there is going to be a division on the Bill, but I should like to associate myself with the remarks of Senator MacEllin on the Bill. I shall vote for the Bill. I should only be saying exactly what he said if I were to speak about it, but the portion of his remarks which I most heartily endorse relates not so much to the economics of the thing as to the effect on the children's minds. After all, the great majority of boys at national schools in the country are going to work on farms some day. They are at an impressionable age and I think the proposed exemption is worth the loss of school time. I associate myself with Senator MacEllin's remarks and I do not propose to say any more.

The Minister spoke of 35 per cent. of the children who availed themselves of this privilege of staying at home. Is that 35 per cent. of the possible 12 to 14 years' old children?

And not of all the children. Senator Johnson gave a wrong impression then.

I certainly did not intend to do so.

Thirty-five per cent of the possible 12 to 14 years' old children cannot be such a tremendous number, and I think we should agree that this proposal of ten days in the spring and ten days in the autumn is necessary, and let the Bill pass without further comment. After all, there are cases of poor men with no money to pay for extra help, and in such cases the children are really provided by Providence to help him in maintaining the family for the year.

I agree with those who support the Second Reading and, like Senator Bagwell, most of what I should have said has already been very well said by the Minister and by Senator Counihan. There is one aspect, however, which I think should be mentioned and it is the period in which these days are to be given. I think it would be a good thing if that could be extended to June, if there could be an option to the parents to keep their children at home during certain periods of the year, when they would have two or three busy days, say, thinning beet or turnips. That is not always done at the same time as Senator Counihan said; sometimes they are thinned earlier than he suggested. Particularly in regard to the cultivation of beet, this proposal is very important for small farmers who depend on family labour, and it would be well if they could have their children in June for thinning beet, and if they could select the dates so as to enable them to spread the 20 days over the year.

Senator Cummins and Senator Farren spoke of this proposal interfering with examinations. I think that is not a very real objection, and I think it would not be at all too much to ask that the period of examinations should be adjusted, so that they would not coincide with these exemption periods. I also thoroughly agree with the vocational aspect of this proposal. I think it is very important, apart altogether from the economic features, that we should create a mental outlook in the children towards the farms instead of away from the farms. I think that has become more or less of a crisis in recent years. The outlook of farmers' sons and daughters is away from the farm, and I think that from that point of view, if for no other reason, this proposal deserves support. I think the break in the general education of the children will not be at all as tragic as is suggested by some of the speakers. I think, in fact, that it is a good thing to give a little relaxation away from school to children now and again. The months of education in primary schools are nothing like those in the secondary or higher schools, and, taking all these things into account, I think this is a very good proposal. It is good, in my opinion, from nearly every point of view, and I support the Second Reading.

With regard to Senator Dillon's point, the harvest comes in at different periods in different years, and at different periods in different parts of the country; it is probably the same with agricultural operations generally —that there are sufficient variations as between different parts of the country to make it difficult to change the dates which we have set down, without, perhaps, causing more inconvenience than anything else. What I am advised is that, when the concession was being granted originally, there was a very full and free discussion on the matter, and while the dates were actually changed in some respect, they were finally fixed on the basis that they were the most suitable for the Saorstát as a whole. I think that in this, as in other matters connected with these concessions, it is better to leave matters as they stand rather than to attempt to regulate them further. However, we may possibly have the point again on Committee Stage, if the Bill reaches that stage. I think at the moment it would be better, seeing that we have to take the country as a whole, to leave the periods as they were originally. I am glad that the Senators who represent the rural community more than other Senators have stressed the need for this concession. I do not say that because they happen to be supporting me in this particular matter, but because I feel that, in coming to a decision, no matter how airily we may feel about educational matters, we must have regard to the facts of the situation in the rural districts. I have not got the statistics showing the number of people who migrate from the West of Ireland during certain periods of the year to England or Scotland. If I had those statistics, I might be able to show that a considerable number of the 34,000 children involved come from that particular class. I think also that there is no harm in leaving people a certain amount of freedom even in educational matters if one is satisfied that the general tendency and inclination of the people is on right lines. It may be said that this School Attendance Act would never have been introduced if we had waited for the people themselves to take the necessary steps. At the same time, I think that the concessions have worked out satisfactorily. It is well to make quite clear to the farmers that, while this concession is afforded, it is to be utilised only in cases in which there would, otherwise, be undoubted hardship. That is the principle on which we should act. We should make quite clear to the farmers that it is not intended that this concession should be utilised for the purpose of keeping their children from school unnecessarily, but rather that the Oireachtas, weighing up the considerations, is of opinion that less hardship will be occasioned, even if there are educational disadvantages, by the granting of this concession than would result if the concession was withdrawn altogether.

When the attendance figures are examined the farming community show up fairly well in the picture as compared with the urban areas. In the City of Dublin in the year ended 30th June, 1934, which is, I think, the last year for which I have statistics, the average daily attendance of pupils between six years and 14 years of age on the rolls was 86.4. I find that in Offaly—a fairly typical rural county— the attendance was 86.3. In County Dublin the figure was 85.9; in Tipperary, 85.6, and in Waterford County, 86.1. In Limerick the figure for the city was 83.3, while the figure for the county was 85.6. The attendance in many of the counties is, therefore, rather higher than the mean average attendance for the whole of the country, which is 85.1. That is proof that the rural community are anxious that their children should attend school regularly. It does not show that the farmers are taking undue advantage of this concession. If I were satisfied that undue advantage was being taken of it, or that it had very disadvantageous effects on the education of the young people concerned, I should certainly view the position as seriously as Senator Johnson seems to view it. However, I do not see that any great harm is going to result from the point of view of attendance in the rural schools or the general efficiency of the children attending these schools. If I gave Senator Johnson the impression that I was very joyful about the concession I gave him a wrong impression. No Minister for Education wishes to grant exemptions if he can avoid doing so. As the Senator would recognise if he were in my position, economic and other considerations have a great deal to do with educational policy, whether the Minister for Education for the time being likes it or not. In this particular case, I am fairly satisfied that the concession is necessary.

I think that Senator Bagwell, Senator MacEllin and other Senators did well to call attention to the fact that education outside the school is as valuable as, and at times more valuable than, education within the school. We are, perhaps, too apt in this country to regard education solely as book learning and acquisition of facts. We have to look at the conditions in the world to-day. When we speak of education, we must have regard to preparation for the business of life. The training of the hand must be attended to as well as the training of the mind, though the training of the mind will always occupy premier place. The training of the hand and of the body is of importance so that the child will be healthy and strong and have some craft or trade. All our children cannot be fortunate enough to find posts in the professions or in the Civil Service. There is very sound educational opinion in all countries in favour of giving, even to children who are going on definitely for specialised, intellectual work, training of the hand. In addition to the training which this vocational work on the land will give the children affected by this Bill, it will also have an effect on their character. It will show them that their lives are bound up with the land and that their future lies there to a very large extent. It is all to the good that the instruction in the schools should be definitely correlated with the occupations the children are likely to follow in after life.

I do not think that it would be possible to grant the concession that Senator Foran has asked me to consider. I had to make up my mind whether, viewing the position in the country, as a whole, and having regard particularly to the needs of the farming community, to introduce this measure, or to drop the concession altogether. Had I dropped the concession, and not asked the Oireachtas to re-enact it, I am sure a great many farmers who found it necessary to keep their children from school would be handicapped. Senators who find it difficult to accept this exemption on educational grounds must bear in mind that, under the School Attendance Act, there is a loophole by which parents are permitted to keep their children at home in cases of hardship or special necessity. Even if the House were to throw out this Bill, farmers could appeal to that clause in the School Attendance Act, and if the district justice were satisfied that the excuse was a reasonable one, no penalty would be inflicted. I think that that would be a wrong way of dealing with this problem. Having made inquiries and consulted the inspectors, I have come to the conclusion that, on the whole, it is wise to re-enact the provisions of this Bill for a further period and I ask the Seanad to pass the Second Reading.

I should like to ask the Minister if there is any proof that the children of the small farmers who take advantage of this concession are behind in knowledge the children who do not take advantage of this concession. According to Senator Cummins, they are very much behind.

There is no proof of that. The advantage of dealing with educational questions is that it is very hard to find proof of a great many things.

Question put and declared carried.
Committee Stage fixed for Wednesday, 4th March.
Top
Share