Does Senator Sheehy Skeffington propose to go ahead with the question on the Adjournment?
Public Business. - Adjournment Debate: Wexford Church of Ireland School.
The Minister is not available—he did not get sufficient notice of this question. At the same time, if the Senator goes ahead, we shall take note of what he says and if any points in his speech require any special comment or attention, we shall do our best to deal with them.
On a point of order, I was informed that the Minister would be present. I took that as assumption on his part of the obligation either of being present or of sending a representative. Would it be possible, even now, for a Parliamentary Secretary or some member of the Cabinet, or somebody to speak for the Government, to be present? There are one or two questions I want to ask, and a Ministerial or a Government view would be valuable.
On a point of order, we normally have the courtesy of the presence of a representative of the Government on these occasions. It would take from the dignity of the House and the dignity of our proceedings if that good procedure is now broken. It is very regrettable if we cannot have some spokesman for the Department in this matter. I understand that the notice was reasonably long.
The only spokesman you could have here for the Department of Education would be the Minister himself. He is the only person who could assume full responsibility for the policy of the Department. As to the necessity for the advisability of having a representative of the Government here, we could all have our viewpoints on that. As I have said, if the Senator feels this is a matter of extreme urgency and that it must be discussed to-day, this is the best we can do. I consider this a rather important matter that would require very careful consideration.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I suggest that the matter is not yet under discussion. We are trying to get decided whether the discussion will proceed or not.
I wonder would it be possible for us to take our tea adjournment now and come back in an hour's time?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Will that resolve anything for you?
Would the Minister be available at 7 o'clock or some reasonable time later on? Presumably, he would be available some time this evening. It seems very regrettable if a matter of this urgency should lose its efficacy by abstention of this kind.
I regret to say that the Minister will not be available at all to-day.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Sheehy Skeffington must make up his mind. This matter was ordered for the Adjournment by the Cathaoirleach and the House must decide to take it now or adjourn.
I accept the situation, but I do so under protest. It is quite true that the Cathaoirleach ordered this matter for the Adjournment, but it is also true that he informed me that the Minister had agreed to be present. I do understand, of course, that it might conceivably be that the Minister thought it would not come until 9.30 p.m., and thought he would not have to be present until then. But we have just been told by Senator Kissane that the Minister will not be available at all to-day. That does not seem to fit in with what had been my previous impression. I am prepared, however, under protest, to raise this matter in the absence of the Minister. I do not intend to be long, but I should prefer to raise this matter, even though nobody of ministerial rank is present, or no representative of the Government is present, in the hope that Senator Kissane or somebody sitting on the Government Benches might be prepared to offer a view on the matter.
The matter I have asked permission, and have been granted permission, to raise is as follows: To draw the attention of the Minister for Education to the widespread public concern over the fact that the children attending the Church of Ireland National School at Fethard-on-Sea have been deprived of regular teaching in their school.
As I see it, the case is quite an exceptional case. That is a point I should like to make at the outset. It is quite exceptional, but I think it is important, because an important issue is involved. I raise the matter because it is rare, and also because I want this kind of case to remain rare in this country. I believe that the majority of our people, Protestant and Catholic alike, feel ashamed when this kind of boycott of a school takes place. We have in this country, I am glad to say, a very stout tradition of good neighbourliness. It applies not only in the big towns but throughout the countryside. I am certain that it exists and exists strongly in County Wexford to-day, if it is allowed to show itself. I think it was an excellent example of this spirit of co-operation and friendliness on both sides which allowed, in the first place, a Catholic teacher to be the teacher in a Church of Ireland National School.
The facts of the case have been in the Press for some weeks now. I quote from the Irish Times of the 3rd June this year under the heading: “Villagers Feel the Pinch of Boycott. School still Without Teacher.”“The Church of Ireland National School closed on May 15th, when its Catholic teacher was advised by a number of Catholic women in the village not to give any more lessons. The 11 children on the rolls have not been to school since, as the position had not been filled, although it has been advertised.” At the end of the account, a local person involved, Mr. Cloney, is quoted as “adding that he did not believe that the local Protestant traders connived in any way” at the circumstances which gave rise to this particular boycott.
I am not concerned with the commercial boycott, although I regard it in this case as equivalent to conviction and sentence without trial. What concerns me is the matter I have asked leave to raise here; and I hope, even though he be absent, that it concerns the Minister also. It is the simple fact that 11 small children are being deprived—I think I might use the word victimised—in relation to the educational facilities and the opportunities for education afforded to them at a most critical age, and at a most critical time of the year. I say quite sincerely that I feel the Minister must be concerned about that. I know that the public is concerned, and I want to ask the Minister, through the leader of the House, what action he has found it possible to take, what action he proposes, and what is his general view of the present situation in this school?
Should the children walk to a distant school or, if they do not, will they be prosecuted under the School Attendance Act for failure to attend the school? I should like the Minister's answer to that question. That is one of the questions for which I should have appreciated his presence, so that he might tell us himself whether or not the failure of these children to attend some distant national school, when their own school no longer offers them teaching, would be regarded as a reason for prosecuting them under the School Attendance Act?
Linked with that question, I should like to ask does the Department intend, and will it take any steps, to supply transport for these children to enable them to get to some other school? Has the Minister taken any other steps? Does he envisage any other steps? Has any approach been made by his inspectors or by his officials to any responsible and influential local people who might be capable of ending what appears to be a most unfortunate deadlock in relation to this small school?
My information is that the teacher in question was not merely an exceptionally competent teacher, but one who was extremely well liked by her small class. I regard the breaking up of this relationship, this happy relationship, on account of circumstances entirely beyond the responsibility or control of these children, as a most heartbreaking and lamentable thing. I deplore it, and, in saying that, I am convinced that most Irish men and women deplore it also.
Whatever the issues involved, in my submission, they are obviously entirely extraneous to the schooling of these young children. I hope—and it is in that hope that I raise the matter—that these children will no longer be sacrificed in these circumstances, in relation to the education which I hold to be their due. It is not my purpose to speak at length, nor is it my purpose to arouse animosity of any kind. It is obvious that were I to go outside the terms in which I raise this matter, there might be big controversial issues which it might be well worth discussing elsewhere, but which it is not my purpose to raise now.
My purpose in raising this matter in this House has been twofold: one, to voice what I believe to be a majority view in this country, the tolerant majority view, that schoolchildren deprived of their schooling in this case are innocent victims who deserve a strong expression of public sympathy, and secondly to give the Minister an opportunity to state his views and his intentions with relation to this particular school which falls under his jurisdiction as Minister for Education.
If I may, I should like to associate myself briefly with Senator Skeffington's remarks. First, I should like to protest as strongly as I can against a tendency, which I think is growing, to discourage the raising of certain kinds of questions on the Adjournment. It is a most useful instrument, as we know —this privilege of raising a matter on the Adjournment. In this House, we have not the right of asking questions of Ministers: the only way we can bring a Minister to the House speedily and sound his views is by putting down a matter for discussion on the Adjournment. It is a weightier way of testing a Minister than a question in the Dáil. That seems to be all the more reason why this instrument of good Government should not be blunted by ministerial or departmental abstentions—I am even inclined to say, evasions.
I am afraid the Senator may not continue in that strain. He must deal only with the matter which has been accepted by the Chair.
I certainly accept that, Sir. I would appeal to the House as a whole to watch and cherish motions on the Adjournment. If we neglect them, we will lose prestige; civil liberties will suffer; and eventually harm will be done to the country as a whole.
The matter before us is mainly a local one, but, as Senator Skeffington has pointed out, it does impinge on the policy of the central Government. That is why we hoped to have the Minister here this evening. It also is a matter which may do grave harm to the good name of the country at home and abroad. In other words, it is the kind of matter to which the Upper House of the Oireachtas needs to give the most careful attention.
I should like to say, at the outset, that, in my opinion, the Department of Education has always shown an admirable example of even-handed justice— I would even say, of generosity—in its treatment of the religious minorities. That is not my own opinion merely: it is the opinion of many leaders of the religious minorities. I had hoped to be able to say that to the Minister himself. In his absence, I would urge on him that now he, a new occupant of the post, has an opportunity to show very clearly that the Department remains true to that policy of even-handed justice in every way and of going even further to help the religious minorities when they were in difficulties.
I hope the Minister will do all in his power—and that the Department will do all in its power—to meet this emergency. By acting wisely and justly in this matter, they will effectively mitigate the unpleasantness of the whole situation. They will not have to make any pronouncement; they will not have to take up any major stand of policy in the matter; but by quietly coping with the emergency in a fair and generous way, they will implicitly remove much of the unpleasantness. I should like to go further. I hope that the members of this House and that Irish men and women of goodwill throughout the country will join in discouraging sectarian animosity of this kind.
Is fíor don Seanadóir gur ceist fé leith atá dá plé aige agus mar gheall air sin amháin is dóigh liom gur ceart go mbeadh fios fátha an scéil ag an Aire in am tráth chun go bhféadfadh sé an freagra ba chuí a thabhairt don Seanadóir ar an rún seo atá os cóir an tSeanaid.
Nílimse chun mórán a rá mar gheall ar an rud seo atá i gceist, agus atá ag déanamh buartha do mhuintir na háite sin i Loc Garman, mar is dóigh liom nuair atá rud mar sin dá phlé againn nár cheart ach beagán a rá. Dá laghad adeirtear i gcásanna den tsórt seo, is ea is fearr, im thuairim mhacánta féin.
The notice which was given to raise this matter was very short and in fact, as you yourself will remember, Sir, it was proposed to raise the matter on the Adjournment of the Seanad tonight. I do not think any of us expected that the matter would come up for discussion so soon. In any event, I think it was very unwise, if not impolite, on the part of Senator Stanford to say that there is any evasion of the issue here. There is no evasion and, indeed, we are at a loss to know what the issue is. That is the question. There is no issue as far as we are concerned here.
This is entirely a local matter, a local dispute which has arisen and which has aroused a certain amount of public attention. I do not think it could be said that the policy of the Department of Education is involved in this matter at all. It could not be. In the first place, the appointment and retention of a teacher in a school is a matter solely for the local manager. That is a well known and well established fact. The question of religion, or so-called religious bigotry, does not enter into it, good, bad or indifferent.
Here was a case of a one-teacher school with 11 pupils where the teacher herself decided to give up teaching. There was nothing the Minister for Education could do about that. He could not go down or get his representative to go down, and compel this teacher to stay in the school. All that could be done in the case was for the local manager, or the acting manager, as he is, to do his best to get another teacher and the acting manager has been doing that. As soon as he succeeds in getting a qualified, or even an unqualified, teacher to resume the teaching of these 11 pupils, that will be sanctioned by the Minister for Education. When that is the position, I do not see how the policy of the Department comes into the matter at all, or what the Minister's functions in it are, except the overriding function that he has in all these cases, to make sure that the departmental regulations, regarding such things as the teaching of the appropriate subjects, are fulfilled. That is the one——
What about the School Attendance Act?
That is another matter; that is a matter for the Department of Justice and not for the Minister for Education.
What about transport to another school?
The question of alternative facilities for these children is one that can be considered, and of course any recommendations that the manager, or the acting manager, would put forward to the Minister for Education would be sympathetically considered. That is all I have to say on the matter, a Chathaoirleach.
Before the House adjourns, I want to say that, as far as the Chair is concerned, there is no question whatever of any attempt being made to curb the rights of Senators to raise any matters that fall within Standing Orders of the House and being of a kind that may properly be raised on the Adjournment. I also want to remind the House that Standing Orders do not provide that a Minister must attend any time the Seanad calls on him.
The Seanad adjourned at 5.15 p.m. sine die.