Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Jul 1967

Vol. 63 No. 10

School Attendance (Amendment) Bill, 1967: Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

Minister for Education (Mr. O'Malley)

As I explained to Dáil Éireann the purpose of this amending Bill is three-fold:

(a) to make possible in every case the serving of warning notices on parents of children who fail to attend school regularly;

(b) to make the necessary provision whereby a child may be produced before the court when the parent will not, or cannot, do so;

(c) to bring the fines imposed under the 1926 Act to a level that will act as a compelling force on parents to send their children to school.

Under the 1926 Act, before a summons can be served on a defaulting parent a Warning Notice must first be issued so that the parent may have an opportunity of ensuring the regular attendance of his child at school. The notice must be served on the particular parent who, in the event of subsequent proceedings, is liable to be prosecuted—in practice this normally means the father.

The need for personal service of the Warning Notice was raised in the courts towards the end of 1963 and I am advised that, under the Act as it stands, personal service should be effected in every case. This causes considerable practical difficulty in the bigger centres of population, such as Dublin. The difficulty is partly due to the fact that fathers are often out at work and not available during the normal duty hours of school attendance officers and partly to the fact that in some cases—and usually the worst ones—the fathers, though at home, will not answer the door and thereby avoid being served with the notice. It is considered necessary, therefore, to amend the 1926 Act to allow for service of the Warning Notice either personally or by registered post.

The 1926 Act provided that the parent of a child to whom the prosecution relates may be ordered by the court to produce the child before it. If the parent fails to produce the child he is liable to be fined but the Act provides no machinery whereby the child may be produced before the court on the failure of the parent to obey the court order. It has hitherto been the practice to issue a warrant for arrest, as the presence of the child in court is considered to be vitally necessary in cases of incorrigible absenteeism and particularly where there is a question of the child's committal to an industrial school. The purposes of the Act would, therefore, best be served by the introduction of a provision specifically designed to ensure the attendance of the child when required.

Provision accordingly is being made in section 3 of the Amendment Bill now before the House. It should be appreciated that this section will operate only as a last resort—after (1) the warning notice has issued, (2) there have been at least two convictions for failure to send the child to school and (3) the parent has failed to comply with an order under section 18 of the original Act requiring him to bring the child before the court.

After 40 years, it is felt that the scale of certain fines in the Act needs revision, if the fines are to serve their purpose i.e., to put ample pressure on parents to send their children to school regularly. Because of the changes in money values in the interim, the imposition of fines within the maxima laid down in the Act of 1926, would, in present circumstances, tend to bring the enforcement of the Act into disrepute. It is considered necessary, therefore, to amend the relevant sections of the Act by increasing the maxima 20/- and 40/- to £5 and £10 respectively.

I should like to inform the House that the measures I am proposing have been taken with the full approval, indeed, I might say at the request of the school attendance committees who are well aware of the way in which the work of the school attendance officers was being frustrated by the lack of these provisions in the original Act.

Mr. Rooney

With the emphasis on education, I welcome this proposed change in the School Attendance Act. The most effective part of it is, of course, the increases in fines from 20/-and 40/- to £5 and £10. At least that will bring a little reality into the situation. There are, unfortunately, parents in the country still who do not realise the value of education, the importance of giving every opportunity possible to their children in the educational field. Those parents are careless and negligent and do not realise they are doing injury to their children by failing to take steps to ensure that maximum opportunities are made available to their children in the form of regular attendance at school.

This Bill also deals with the action to be taken against parents and children who contravene its provisions. It lays down that the father is liable to prosecution if he will not take steps to ensure that his child attends school regularly. On this point I should like the Minister to clarify whether in this Bill either parent is liable or is it still only the father who is liable? Originally it was only the father who was liable. There are circumstances in which the attitude of a parent towards the welfare of the child is not as good as one might wish. The mother of that child might have a very good attitude towards the child's education. On the other hand, it might be proved that it was the fault of the mother that the child was not attending school and the father should not be expected to bear the full blame for the breach of the Act by the non-attendance of the child.

There are various points which can be raised. You have, for instance, the health of the child. The child may have some constitutional weakness which would leave it prone to periodic or frequent illness, which would involve absence from school. Then there is the child who normally enjoys good health and is rarely absent from school. The Act lays down that if the child is not sent to school while in good health the parent is answerable. In relation to the child whose health is substandard, some arrangement should be made regarding the issue of suitable medical certificates to ensure that, although the child is not attending regularly, the parents will take steps to see that the child will attend school at all times when its health permits it to attend.

There is also another aspect of the matter—the child itself. A child may mitch from school. When the child leaves his parents' home they assume he has gone to school but, in fact, he is mitching. In Dublin city and possibly in the other cities there are school attendance officers whose duty it is to visit the homes of those children, to take the necessary action, to issue the necessary warnings and obtain the excuses for the non-attendance of those children. Such a situation does not obtain in the rural areas and the gardaí are mainly responsible for implementing the terms of the Bill in those areas.

When you are considering this matter you have a situation in which a city child has only to go to school around the corner, whereas a child in the rural areas often has to walk two, three or even four miles to school. There are not so many children walking four miles now but there were plenty of children in 1926 walking more than three miles to school. When the weather is inclement, it is a hardship on children of tender years to start to walk a distance of three miles to school. Here is a situation in which children, although enjoying good health, have no means of transport and have long journeys to go to school. They are compelled by weather conditions to break the law by staying away from school and not complying with the regulations of the School Attendance Acts.

Also, if the non-attendance is protracted, court proceedings are necessary. Furthermore, it is necessary to take the parents or the child or the parents and the child to court. There is power in the Bill to take the child to court and have the case tried in the absence of the parents or if the parents do not turn up the child is answerable. There is a weakness there because it is difficult for a court of adults to deal with a timid child of tender years. It is very difficult to find out from the child what is the real cause of this negligence. Is it the parents or is it the child who is negligent? There is a weakness in the Bill that the child can be tried in the absence of its parents. Steps should be taken to ensure that the parents will be answerable at all times for the attendance of the child except where the child is a truant, is mitching or maybe fooling his parents so far as attendance at the school is concerned.

Of course, the industrial schools deal with that kind of unmanageable child. We often notice in the courts where parents give undertakings so that the child will not be taken away to an industrial school. The Act is very fairly administered by all concerned, by the gardaí, the school attendance officers and the courts. I do not think anybody has an objection to make to the Minister for the way in which the Act is administered. It is administered for the benefit of the children themselves.

It is hard to know what can be done to improve the situation in relation to the arrest of a child and the taking away of a child from its home to attend court. You have a difficulty there. I know that when it is necessary to take the child from its parents and put it into an industrial school even those circumstances can be considered fair enough but when you take a child away from its parents and home to a court so that the case can be heard, there is a weakness there. Something should be done to ensure that somebody, even if it is not the parents, perhaps the teacher, the guardian of the child or somebody else, could come along with the child to answer the case against the child.

I do not think I have anything more to say on this matter. This is a Bill which brings the Act up to date in relation to some of the provisions which applied 40 years ago, particularly the fines. I feel that the parents should be liable to even greater penalties. I do not think there is anything in relation to imprisonment of parents who persistently break the Act. It will be agreed that it is almost a criminal offence on the part of parents if they do not give their children the opportunity for education which is there and require their children to comply with the requirements of the School Attendance Acts.

The fine now is fairly substantial for working class families but those who could pay that fine in most cases realise the value of education to their children. That is why I am not sure that this system of imposing a fine of £5 or £10 particularly on working class people may be the answer to this problem. I have no suggestion to make myself but I feel that a fine only may not be sufficient and that a greater penalty may be required to be imposed on the parents.

This Bill as far as children are concerned does quite a lot. It takes a child into an industrial school, it takes a child to court, it gives power to arrest a child, and all these things. For that reason I think that the parents are getting off lightly enough under its provisions. There are certain other penalties which should be considered in relation to parents if they are obviously and persistently breaking the law. Some parents with large families who may be in poor circumstances perhaps are tempted to send their children to work at menial tasks—running as messengers or any other job that a child of 12, 13 or 14 years of age is capable of doing. The employers concerned with those children do not ask the child for a birth certificate, and if the child is useful at this work, whether it be fruit picking or working on the factory floor or some kind of routine job, the employer will employ him.

Is there anything in this Bill which is liable to impose a penalty on the employer? Is the employer required, for instance, to obtain a birth certificate from the child showing its age if the child is not in possession of a social welfare card? I think that in order to get a social welfare card a person must produce a birth certificate, and this arises at 16 years. The school leaving age is 14 years, and so there is a gap of two years during which a child can continue to work without having a social welfare card. The children I am dealing with now are under 14, possibly 12 and 13. Employers have a certain responsibility for taking these children away from their education, knowing that the school is open. It is different during the holiday time. The employer should take steps to find out the correct age of the child. He may say that he thought the child was over 14, but I think that there is where an obligation should be imposed on the employer, that if he takes a child on to do work for which the child is receiving wages or payment it is up to the employer, if the child cannot produce a social welfare card, to require the production of a birth certificate. That will make sure that a child of 12 or 13 or under 14 will not be working instead of being at school. Employers have a lot to answer for who would take children away from school in order to work at some of these tasks which are appropriate for children of that age.

Mr. Murphy

We are here amending an Act of 1926. Senator Rooney is of the opinion that an adjustment in the level of fines is not sufficient and that we should contemplate imprisoning parents who keep their children away from school. I wonder is it simply good enough to amend the Act of 1926, take care of flaws in the working of it which have become apparent since, and to adjust the fine to the current value of money. I hope that the Minister will get an opportunity of standing back and looking further at this issue at some time, and considering whether, in fact, we are going the right way about this problem.

First of all, have we any evidence that the amount of absenteeism from schools has decreased between 1926 and 1967? I do not know, but I am of the opinion that, in fact, it has. There is now a wider acceptance of the benefits of education and there is not the need that there was in 1926 of a great measure of compulsion to compel parents to send children to school. We now have another generation who have had the benefit of the education we have been able to provide and, as I have said, there is a wider acceptance now of the benefits of education. There is, however, still a measure of absenteeism, but I wonder are we approaching the problem properly by saying that we will prosecute people involved. From what little I know about it—and I know that Senator Brosnahan is offering to speak and he with his background will have far wider knowledge of this—I would imagine that the children who are kept away from school are children of parents who are in need of help, not of prosecution.

Children are kept away from school because they have not good enough clothes to go to school in. They are not properly cared for. They are dirty, verminous on occasion. They are naturally an irritant to the teacher, and they reach the situation when it is really a hardship for the child to go to school, and the parent is in a position that it does not see the great value of education anyway.

Simply at this day and age to proceed with court prosecutions is, I think, out of date. The school attendance officers do an excellent job, but should they not rather change their role and be outdoor representatives for education, visiting the homes of children who have not been attending, seeing what the problems are and seeing that those problems are attended to? They should work properly in conjunction with parents' associations attached to the school. In other words, we should try to get these parents of children who do not attend school and integrate them more into the local community. It is where they are not integrated that you have the problem of children being neglected and not being sent to school or properly equipped for school.

I am horrified at the idea of children like these being sent away to industrial schools. In the 1960's we should try to get away from this system of dealing with the problem. If we are growing in our nationhood the 1926 approach, necessary and excellent as it may have been, is not good enough for 1967. This is a problem, and I do not know whether the Minister in his reply will be able to give us figures on the extent of absenteeism now compared with what it was.

Again, I wonder is this amendment of the 1926 Act going to take care of and help in the provision of schooling for the children of itinerants. They are, again, the type of people in the context of our society where the need is to make social efforts to integrate them rather than to prosecute them if their children are not attending school. I do not intend to go into detail on this Bill. There are some amendments which are necessary, but I rather question the idea of accepting that all that needs to be done is to change the money value of the fines and that will help people to deal with the situation in 1967.

I know the Minister is very busy and energetic in regard to education. What is involved here is a relatively small problem but I hope the Minister will get an opportunity of drawing back, as it were, a little from the problem and considering whether this approach of prosecution and fines and industrial schools is relevant and desirable in this day and age or whether the more socially just approach is desirable. An effort to integrate the parents of the children into our society might be the better and more desirable approach. Perhaps the Minister could take steps along these lines at a later date.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I sympathise with Senator Murphy when he implies that the problem here is in reality more a problem of domestic environment than of school attendance. I feel with confidence that the Minister in his awareness of the problem of non-attendance, particularly of children of certain environments, has a very lively interest in how this can best be overcome, particularly in relation to itinerants and the type of people to whom Senator Murphy referred, people who for one reason or another may be ashamed to send their children to school. This, I understand from those who are very conversant with it, is at the moment a very real problem. Many parents are affected by the sort of pride that would more or less make them somewhat shy of sending their children to school to be shown up before their betters, so to speak.

The real problem here, I feel like Senator Murphy, is a problem of the home. For that reason there are one or two queries I should like to put to the Minister. I am not sure whether they are relevant but I should like to have the Minister's view on them.

In the first instance there is the power to bring the child before a court subject to the three conditions outlined. I am not aware whether any procedure operates, or is intended to operate, when the child is brought before the court. We all agree that the culprit, if any, is the parent rather than the child and I feel it is essentially important that the child, when questioned under this new section, should feel the benevolent jurisdiction of the court rather than any punitive jurisdiction. I have confidence in the discretion of justices, the court officers and the child attendance officers in this matter. However, I would suggest to the Minister that proceedings should be held in camera. Perhaps that is the case already.

As I understand it, the existing law makes provision for the attendance of the child with his or her parents. This amendment will enable the child to be brought before the court without a parent. I feel it is important that the hearing should be entirely informal and of a nature which would enable the court and the school attendance officer to win the confidence of the child and advise him. This would be better accomplished in the privacy of a room rather than in the formal atmosphere of a court. It may be said that justices will use their discretion but I feel it would be better to write it into the Bill so that this fear would not be uppermost in the child's mind.

There is another matter which is not entirely disconnected with this. On the general question of school attendance it is relevant to the Bill and I should like to get the Minister's view on it. We are aware of a kind of resentment towards the police force because of the attendance in uniform of the garda at a school to question a child on his attendance at school. This appears to be an undesirable procedure in so far as it exists. I do not say it is widespread. There are two reasons for this. The first is the child is being questioned at a time when, in fact, he is no longer guilty, if that is the proper word, of any misconduct, when, in fact, he is attending school like every other child in his classroom. This has, and I know of certain instances, generated a certain fear of going to school in children whose attendance is not what it might be. They feel that by going to school they are leaving themselves in line, so to speak, that they are placing themselves in the position where they can be questioned before their fellow pupils by members of the Garda in uniform. That is entirely undesirable.

Such questioning, necessary as it is, should be done discreetly and privately at home. It is vitally important to generate in those problem children a sense of awareness and confidence in the fact that authority is not there to punish them or to embarrass them before their associates but that authority is there in their interest.

When this kind of attendance of a garda at school arises, generally the eyes of all the other children focus on this child, the inference being: "There is the culprit; there is the incipient delinquent." I have known adults who might not have come from delinquent households to generate a certain disrespect for the gardaí because in their early days they can recall questioning, not of themselves, and children being threatened by garda so-and-so, almost in the old bogey man tradition of putting children to sleep or sending them in fear to bed.

The guards have been used for that purpose and it is unfortunate. I share entirely Senator Murphy's concern but I feel that the Minister is fully aware of this fact and I would ask him to give grave consideration to spelling out that the procedure of questioning when it arises will be in camera. If necessary he might also recommend that the gardaí do not attend in uniform at schools.

Mr. Brosnahan

I welcome this Bill inasmuch as it improves certain facets of the 1926 School Attendance Act. Senator Murphy has a point when he states that this type of legislation can in effect seem negative but there are other approaches to this problem of a more positive nature and I hope to make a number of references to them later on.

Legislation of this kind is important because we have to tackle the question of absenteeism from school. Those who have made surveys of this problem indicate that in 10 per cent of the cases we find absenteeism a main factor where children, in the process of learning any subject, tend to fall behind. The cumulative effect following repeated absences is that the child tends to lose faith and becomes backward. This is disastrous for the child. He loses confidence and it is tantamount to throwing in the towel, to give up. This leads to defeat and disappointment for the child. There are many reasons for absenteeism other than illness—for example, parental indifference. Many parents are quite indifferent as to the welfare of their children. This parental indifference adversely affects a child's motivation. If the parent is not interested, it is only a matter of time for the child to become disinterested as well. Parental encouragement is a powerful stimulus to a child's scholastic attainment.

Another cause of absence from school is parental hostility to the teacher in the school. This can have disastrous results altogether, because the immature child cannot understand two symbols of authority, the parent and teacher, in conflict. It sets up confusion and fear in his own mind. He does not understand the situation. He is inclined to lean on the sympathetic side, on the side of the parent. He develops a hostility towards school and the teacher.

Another cause of absenteeism is, of course, the non-enforcement in a consistent and genuine way of the existing School Attendance Act. People lose respect for law if it is not consistently and genuinely enforced. After a while, with certain parents, the School Attendance Act becomes a bit of a joke, becomes a farce. Fines have been too small; the delay in bringing the child before the court has been too great. Many children leave school before the case even comes before the court. Children beginning to leave at 13 years and 3 months often leave on reaching 14 without having been brought before the court.

Another cause of absenteeism is, of course, economic necessity, to which Senator Murphy has referred. Many parents keep their children at home, or withdraw them from school at an early age for the purpose of sending them out to satisfy their own economic needs. This is, of course, a very shortsighted policy and damages a child's capacity to cope in a society which is becoming more complex and competitive. However, it is encouraging to see that the problem of absenteeism is a diminishing one. Senator Murphy did ask if there was any evidence to indicate how effective school attendance legislation for the benefit of the public outside has been in the past to meet the problem of absenteeism. Yesterday I went over some reports of the Department of Education, going back to the time when the School Attendance Act of 1926 was not in force. It is of interest to note that the first School Attendance Act was passed in 1892 but it was optional for local authorities to set up school attendance committees. In many areas they did not set them up at all, and in certain areas where they were set up, they ceased to operate after a short time. This made the introduction of the 1926 Act necessary.

Taking the period 1905 to 1965, at quinquennial intervals, the attendances, expressed as a percentage of enrolments, work out as follows: 1905, 67.4 per cent; 1910, 70.8 per cent; 1915, 71.5 per cent; 1920, 69.6 per cent; 1925, 73.5 per cent. Then the School Attendance Act was passed in 1926 and the figure for that year was 77 per cent. Then there was a very significant jump, following the introduction of the legislation. In 1930 it became 84.4 per cent; in other words, between the years 1925, prior to the introduction of the Act, and 1930, there was a jump from 73.5 per cent to 84.4 per cent. In 1940 it was 85 per cent; 1945, 83.7 per cent; 1950, 85.5 per cent; 1955, 85.6 per cent; 1960, 88.1 per cent and for 1965 the latest published figure is 91.7 per cent. Therefore, from the year of the introduction of the School Attendance Act of 1926 there was a jump of more than 14 per cent in the attendance expressed as percentages of enrolments from year to year. This is very significant indeed. Of course, there are reasons for this. One would be the development of better transport facilities. Another would be better socioeconomic standards to a certain extent and also the introduction of the school attendance legislation.

Therefore, it is of importance that the Seanad should, when considering this piece of legislation, realise that legislation of this kind can have a very positive effect. There is, of course, the socio-economic aspect of it, to which Senator Murphy referred. In order to bring certain aspects of the socioeconomic situation before the House we should consider how we can improve the lot of people who are not in a position to clothe their children properly and send them out to school with a certain amount of self-respect. We should consider generally the level of income for the various groups in society, with particular reference to the level of income of a widow who is inclined to keep her children at home so that they can go out to earn a few extra shillings to improve her lot. Various aspects of the problem might be considered positive aspects. It would be advisable to develop better parent-teacher contacts, so that there would be a mutual appreciation of the difficulties which often exist in the training and education of children. Also, the majority of parents do seek help and co-operation from schools in the orderly upbringing of their children, but there is a minority who frustrate and hinder the work of the schools.

Parent enlightenment can be beneficial, and such enlightenment could be achieved by the advice of social workers to parents on the long-term value of education for their children and on the expansion of pre-marriage counselling courses, or marriage preparation courses. These are in existence in many areas throughout the country at present, but they could be of great value in bringing home to the parents the necessity for keeping their children at school regularly and also for long periods so that they would be in a position to face the competitive society into which they will have to be meshed at a later stage.

Life is becoming more and more competitive. There is no walk of life at present of any value which is open to a person without some form of competition. There are academic hurdles over which a child must go. Take apprenticeship, which was taken for granted some years ago. Now there are certain educational requirements, the group certificate or intermediate certificate. Parents often fail to realise these things. Therefore, advice to them could be a very important matter for the future.

Parent-teacher meetings could also be improved so that advisers, teachers and others could advise parents as to the long-term value of education. Also teacher-trainees, in my opinion, could be trained in methods of dealing with problem children. Many of these children who do not attend school are problem children; they are maladjusted; they need special treatment. Teachers should be trained in methods of dealing with these children. Techniques of teaching are important, of course, in the imparting of knowledge, but so also are attitudes towards children, particularly towards the problem child, where this is very important. Teachers should also be trained on how to deal with the really maladjusted child and to reduce his difficulties to a minimum in such a manner as he might feel more at home at school. These are important positive aspects of the problem and I think that the Minister would be advised to set up a working party to examine the positive approach to supplement what he has introduced here today which is an advance on existing school attendance legislation. We hope it will meet with as much success as previous legislation.

Mr. Yeats

I also should like to welcome this Bill. It covers, as has been pointed out, only a relatively small facet of Irish education but within its limited field it is an important Bill. I do not know how many children there are in the country whom one could describe as absentees from the national schools but even if one per cent of children in national schools have an attendance which is unsatisfactory that would amount to about 5,000 in the country as a whole. It may very well be somewhat higher than that. Therefore, this Bill is of some importance within its limited field.

Senator Murphy was perfectly correct in saying that this form of compulsory procedure for taking parents or children to court is obviously not suited to present day needs but he was, perhaps, ignoring the fact that powers of the kind given in this Bill are obviously only for use as a last resort. I think it is fair to say that the position up to now has always been that the school attendance officers and the gardaí have gone out of their way to try to persuade parents to send their children to school. Visit after visit has been paid to the parents. There have been talks to the parents and talks to the children. I am sure the teachers also took part in these proceedings. It is only in the very last resort, when all other efforts have failed and when a child's attendance over a considerable period has been very poor indeed, that such powers as are in the School Attendance Acts come forth.

Senators who have spoken, Senator Rooney in particular unless I misunderstood him, in terms of prosecuting the child are not really using the correct phraseology. I do not think there is any question of prosecuting the children. We must understand that a child who has not even attained the minimum standard of education given in the national school up to the age of 14 will go through life essentially illiterate, unable to read or write or even to do simple arithmetic and for all the rest of that child's life he will be more or less unemployable. He is fated to a life—and his family are fated to a life if he marries—of bitter, grinding poverty. That is the fact that we must consider. It is not a case of prosecuting the child but of trying to secure the entire future of that child and I think it is in that way we should look at it and not as a question of taking a child to court for the purpose of punishing him.

There is one matter I should like to put to the Minister with regard to this Bill. It is the general question of the age to which compulsory education should continue. At present it is 14 and it has been 14 ever since the 1926 Act was passed. It is proposed, I understand, to increase it to 15 in the year 1970. I presume the aim is that as from the month of September 1970, the beginning of the school year, the age will be raised to 15. I should like to urge very strongly on the Minister to consider, if at all possible, that instead of raising the age to 15 in September 1970 he should go a little bit further and raise it to 16 because the day has already come in other countries, certainly it has come in the US, when a child who leaves school at 14 is pretty well unemployable. For that reason I feel that the raising of the school leaving age to 15 will not do a great deal of good.

An Cathaoirleach

The Chair feels that the suggestion is outside the scope of this small amending Bill.

Mr. Yeats

I would suggest that it is not very easy for us to discuss the question of using compulsory powers to keep children at school to a certain age without considering what that age will be.

An Cathaoirleach

This Bill amends a certain Act. The Senator is now suggesting something that must be a matter for further legislation. It does not arise properly on this small amending Bill.

Mr. Yeats

I always understood that on Second Reading one could deal, at least in passing, with the principal Act which is being amended.

An Cathaoirleach

In passing, of course.

Mr. Yeats

I do not propose to say very much more on it. I would very briefly urge the Minister if at all possible to consider raising the age to 16 on the grounds that I made. The average age at the moment for doing the Intermediate Certificate is about 15½. Therefore, the average child would not reach that minimum standard by the age of 15. We should look at this situation from the point of view that the absolute minimum education for any child should be up to Intermediate Certificate. Therefore, I would urge the Minister to consider this if at all possible. I know he will be told it is impossible but the Minister is a man who has shown in the past that when something is impossible he says: "Let us go ahead and do it." I hope he may be able to in this case.

Dónal Ó Conalláin

Ba mhaith liom a rá i dtosach gur údar díomá dhom gur as Béarla ar fad a chuir an tAire an leasú seo ós ár gcóir. Le fada anuas, ba ghná aon reachtaíocht a bhain le h-oideachas nó aon rud a tháinig ón Roinn Oideachais a thairiscint as Gaeilge agus dar liomsa is céim ar gcúl é an cleachtadh nua seo. Tuigim, ar ndóigh, nach ar an Roinn Oideachais atá cúram fhorbairt na Gaeilge feasta ach ar Roinn na Gaeltachta, ach mar sin féin bheinn ag súil le dea-shompla agus chomh-oibriú níos fearr ná sin ón Roinn Oideachais. Ba chuireadh é do Sheanadóirí labhairt as Gaeilge ar ábhar den tsort seo, agus b'fhéidir go mbogfadh sé Seanadóirí chun é sin a dhéanamh dá n-úsáidfeadh an tAire an Ghaeilge ina ráiteas féin. Ach, ar ndóigh, is scéal tharais é sin nach mbaineann go sonnruch leis an mBille.

Maidir leis an mBille féin, tabharfaidh sé caoi dhúinn aithbhreithniú a dhéanamh ar fhiúntas an dlí atá i bhfeidhm cheana chun na críocha dár cheapadh é. D'fhéadfadh an tAire a innsint dúinn cé mhéad a d'éirigh leis nó cé mhéad a theip ar na haidhmeanna a bhí leis a bhaint amach go dtí seo. Sin rud nach mbeadh a fhios ag an ghná-dhuine, mar is fíor-annamh a foilsítear sna nuachtáin nó áit ar bith eile gur gearradh píonós ar éinne toisc an dlí áirithe seo a shárú.

Ba inspéise go mór liom mar sin an tuairisc seo a thug an Seanadóir Brosnahan dúinn faoin fheabhas a tháinig ar scéal seo an tinnrimh ón uair a chéad-cheapadh an dlí seo sa bhlian 1926. Sin é an céad phíosa eolais cruinn a fuaramar ar an ábhar seo. Ar ndóigh, ní féidir a rá i dtaobh an dlí seo gurbh é amháin ba chiontach leis an bhfeabhas sin agus d'admhaigh an Seanadóir fhéin é sin. Ach má tá aon chuid den fheabhas sin le cur i leith an dlí, is fiú ann an dlí sin, agus caithfidh sé go bhfuil an tAire sásta freisin an dlí a fhágáil ann ó thárla go bhfuil sé ag moladh leasú den tsort seo.

Anois, go dtí seo is ar na bunscoileanna amháin a chuaigh an dlí seo i bhfeidhm. Cé go raibh scoláirí faoi aois 14 ins na hiar-bhunscoileanna chomh maith, ní raibh fadhb ar bith go bhfios domsa ar na meánscoileanna ariamh faoi thinnreamh, agus é sin, den chuid is mó, de bharr go raibh ar thuismitheoirí táillí a íoc. As seo amach beidh a mhalairt de scéal ann, agus i gceann cúpla bliain, nuair a ardófar aois fhágála na scoile go dtí 15, beidh cuid réasúnta mór do mhuintir na niar-bhunscoileanna ag teacht faoi thionchar dlí seo. Go dtí seo, scoláire meánscoile ar bith nach ndearna tinnreamh sásúil ar scoil nó a bhí ar éalú i ngan fhios, bhí bealach réidh ag údarás na scoile chun deighleáil leis—é a dhíchur as an scoil ar fad. Ach ar éigin a bheidh an cead sin ag na h-údaráis scoile as seo amach faoin gcóras nua agus is dóigh go gcaithfear dul i muinín an dlí ina gcás siúd freisin.

Ach ba mhaith liom a fháil amach an bhfuil sé i gceist an dlí a agairt ar dháltaí meanscoile, nó an fiú leis an Aire píonós a ghearradh ar thuismitheoirí scoláire meánscoile toisc mac nó iníon leo a bheith imithe chomh mór sin ó smacht nach féidir leo iachall a chur ar an dálta leanúint dá scolaíocht. Ar éigin ab fhiú é. Nuair a thagann sé go dtí aois 14 nó 15, is ar éigin is fiú dul i mbun an dlí i gcás duine a chaithfidh dul ar scoil in éadan a thola. Ach mar adúirt mé cheana, tá sé deacair aon léirmheas fiúntach a dhéanamh ar an leasú seo cheal eolais ar an gcaoi d'oibrigh sé go dtí seo.

B'fhearr linn go léir, ar ndóigh, go mbeadh tuiscint agus meas chomh mór sin ar oideachas agus ar thábhacht an oideachais ag an bpobal i gcoitinne nach mbeadh aon gá le reachtaíocht den tsórt seo. Is cuimhin linn go léir gur iarr an tAire féin go dúthrachtach orainn anseo roint míonna ó shoin, gur iarr sé ar gach duine a dhícheall a dhéanamh chun a chur ina luí ar thuismitheoirí a thábhactaí atá sé dóibh féin agus dá gclann iad ar fad a chur ar scoil chomh fada agus is féidir D'fheadfath sé go dtiocfaidh an lá nuair a bheidh an tuiscint agus an meas sin ann agus nuair nach mbeidh aon ghá le reachtaíocht den tsort seo. Ach go dtí sin, má fheictear don Aire gur feabhas ar an scéal an leasú seo a chur ar an sean-reacht, tá mise sásta glacadh leis agus, mar a chéile le Seanadóirí eile, fáiltím roimhe.

Mrs. Ahern

I, too, should like to welcome the Bill. Senator Brosnahan and others have covered all the relevant points in its favour. In most cases of non-attendance, it is the parents, not the children, who are to blame. There are some parents, at least a minority, who could not care less whether their children get to school or not. I think parents of today are far too pleasure-seeking and some of them will not even get up in time to get the children ready. Then the children are very reluctant to go late to school and that is a reason why many children do not attend.

Another reason is that parents do not see that the children do their lessons and the children then feign headaches and other illnesses the following morning and are kept at home for the least excuse. I do not like to see children being brought to court except in extreme cases because it is the parents' fault rather than the children in most cases. I agree with Senator Brosnahan that there should be far more pre-marriage courses so that parents in this day should realise the great responsibility they are taking on when they decide to raise a family. There is not at all enough emphasis on child psychology, but that is too big a question to go into now.

There is one question which has not been referred to so far, that of apprentices. I know cases of employers who take on apprentices and agree that they should attend technical schools but those apprentices have not been given their day off. I do not know if there is any way in which it can be ensured that such employers are punished. I welcome the measure. I welcome anything that will ensure that parents do not keep their children from school for trifling reasons.

Mr. O'Malley

I am grateful to Senators on both sides for the constructive manner in which they have dealt with this amending Bill. Senator Rooney suggested that the greatest penalty on a parent is that he has been deprived of the custody of his child. Mention was made of the employment of children of under school leaving age. Of course, the Conditions of Employment Acts deals, as we know, with the employment of children. There seems to be some confusion with regard to the child when he gets into the court. As has been pointed out, this is only as a last resort, when the other methods have failed, for getting the child to toe the line, so to speak. The child will be on his own in the court only when the parent is such an incorrigible type that he has ignored warnings and failed to comply with the court warning to produce his child in court.

Senator O'Kennedy mentioned the holding of the case in camera. He might not have used those words but I think he implied that the child might be frightened on his own in a court of law. The judge has discretionary powers and I think everyone will agree that children's courts generally are conducted in an informal manner.

There was a question about the gardaí being in uniform. In some cases the gardaí are the school attendance officers and in other cases there are civilian, so to speak, school attendance officers. However, on the question of gardaí in uniform, I will bring the Senator's remarks to the attention of the Minister for Justice.

Senator Murphy mentioned the difficult problem for which we have not unfortunately a satisfactory solution, that is the problem of itinerants and the difficulty of getting those children to school. He regretted the fact that the only option that evidently existed was for those children who are generally absent from school to be prosecuted or sent to industrial schools and suggested that it would be better to integrate the parents themselves into society. Of course, this is one of the great social and economic problems of our time. More and more, public opinion is becoming attuned to an appreciation that one of the greatest evils in our country today is poverty, with all the evils attached to it. I am afraid, except to make a passing reference at this stage, I cannot go into all the details I suppose we could go into on these problems, particularly environment and all the other aspects.

I might say that there is no doubt in my mind that the closing of smaller schools and the provision of transport services will mean further school attendance. I am grateful to Senator Brosnahan for those figures which I have not available. They show the graph is going up very substantially since the original Act was introduced. Those figures will be further improved with the smaller schools closing and free transport. Of course the provision of free post-primary education will undoubtedly affect the attitude of certain parents towards education generally. This in turn will have an effect on our school attendance at all levels. It is quite true, as several Senators have remarked, that there is a type of parent who, no matter what you do for them, act completely irresponsibly in so far as the education of their children is concerned.

I think it was Senator Rooney at the outset who asked if the father was the parent of the child. That is clarified in the School Attendance Act of 1926. It defines "parent" and says:

The word "parent" in relation to a child means the person having the legal custody of the child and, where owing to the absence of such person or for any other reason the child is not living with or is not in the actual custody of such person, includes the person with whom the child is living or in whose actual custody the child is.

He also mentioned the health of the child. Section 4 (1) deals with this matter and says that if the child is ill, a certificate from a doctor should be obtained. I think the excellent co-operation between teachers and school attendance officers enables the school attendance officers to know the parents who are the greatest transgressors. I do not believe there has been too much trouble under the heading of reasonable excuses. They have never resorted to prosecution if a child was ill.

Senator Brosnahan suggested that it is all right to be passing Acts and amending Acts but that we should try to improve things further by means of a type of working party. I appreciate what he is driving at in this and I certainly will bear it in mind. It is all right to bring in legislation but to see that it works in the most effective manner possible is the important thing, and looking at the original Act and this amending section, there is a necessity for a follow-up in certain instances.

Senator Ó Conalláin expressed the fear that the scheme of free education would in some way affect the discretion of the conductors of secondary schools as to how they might discipline their pupils who, among other things, fail to attend regularly. The School Attendance Act covers all problems for children under 14 years of age, whether in primary or post-primary schools.

Question put and agreed to.

Acting Chairman

Next Stage?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

As there is general agreement on the Bill, we should like to have the remaining Stages now, if there is no objection.

Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment, received for final consideration, and passed.