School Attendance Bill, 1942—Report.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 5, before Section 6 to insert a new section as follows:—
The principal teacher of any school (which is a national school, a recognised school or a suitable school) shall supply, in such form as the Minister may direct, to the proper enforcing authority a weekly return of the names and addresses of pupils attending that school who have been struck off the school rolls during the week to which the return relates and the reasons why they have been so struck off.
I promised to accept an amendment by Deputy Mulcahy on the Committee Stage. This puts the principle of the amendment into legal form. The particulars referred to, with regard to such children, can be entered, under instructions, on the form of the weekly return of absences furnished by the teacher.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In page 5, line 5, after the word "shall" to insert the words "in the prescribed form".
When we discussed this matter in Committee we discussed what exactly would happen when, a child having presented itself to its new school, it was necessary to find out what its previous school history was. I understood from the discussion that took place then that the new teacher would apply to the former teacher for the child's history. I understood also that the Minister agreed that that application would be made on a form which would embody the application on the one hand and the report on the other so as to systematise both the application for and the passing on of the information. It is for that reason I am moving this amendment which, if accepted, will provide that "the principal teacher of the new school shall in the prescribed form request the principal teacher of the former school" to supply the information.
I am accepting this amendment. It was the intention to have this request on the prescribed form giving the particulars in reply to the request.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In page 5, line 6, after the word "shall" to insert the words "within a period of not more than one week".
The object of the amendment is to meet a situation where differences of opinion might arise between teachers, as to the exchange of information, involving correspondence and argument. I am suggesting it should be made a kind of statutory matter that when, on the prescribed form application is made to the former teacher for information, such information should be furnished inside a week. I would like to know from the Minister, following the suggestion that was made here the last day, whether the form conveying the information will be franked so as to obviate the necessity for paying postage on it when it is being transmitted through the Post Office in an outward or inward direction.
I will look into the question of postage. I have not any definite information on it at the moment. The Deputy is not pressing the amendment?
No. I am simply suggesting that, unless some such period as this is fixed, an unsatisfactory hiatus may arise in certain cases.
I have no objection in principle to the amendment. I wish to say, however, that, occasionally, cases may occur where, owing to schools being closed or for some other very good reason, the form is not filled up and returned within the week. I do not think we should put things into the statute unless we are absolutely certain that they can be implemented. Again, it may not, perhaps, be clear to the House that the Minister has power to take disciplinary action against teachers who fail to carry out the regulations of the Department. I feel that I already have ample power to deal with a matter of this kind.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In page 5, line 9, to delete the word "attending" and substitute therefor the words "enrolled at".
I am accepting the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In page 5, lines 24 to 62, and in page 6, lines 1 to 8, to delete Section 7 (1), and substitute the following:—
(1) In addition to any other statutory prohibition of or statutory restriction on the employment of children, no person shall have in his employment any child who has not attained the age of fourteen years.
This amendment, with amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15, meets an amendment that was put down by Deputy Mulcahy on Committee Stage. The exceptions to it are set out in amendment No. 13. These are: The exercise of manual labour by a child lawfully detained in a certified industrial or reformatory school; the receipt by a child of instruction in manual labour in any school; the employment of a child by a relative, if such employment does not prevent or interfere with the attendance of the child at school or the obtaining by the child of proper benefit from such attendance. The word "relative" is defined. In addition to the degree of blood relationship, it specifies that the child must, of course, live in the relative's dwelling-house, if it is to be excepted from this provision.
I explained to the House on the Second Reading that it is extremely difficult to deal with the matter of the employment of children by parents. Perhaps I did not emphasise sufficiently, when dealing with this question, that we may be faced with the position of having on adjoining farms children in the one case working for their parents, who will not be covered if my amendment is accepted, and, on the next farm, children working for gain. There was such a strong feeling, however, that we ought to prevent the actual employment of children for gain that I feel it is a matter which will have to be decided sometime, but, as I said on the last amendment, there is always the question whether it is good to put things down in black and white in the law of the land if there are going to be wide opportunities for evasion, and if, in fact, it is not going to be possible to ensure absolute compliance with such conditions.
I am not able to reconcile amendment No. 5 with amendment No. 12.
Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12 fall.
Then I want to say that, as far as I understand the Minister's proposal, it meets very satisfactorily the case that was made in this House.
Having indulged in some criticism of the Minister's action on the last occasion, I now want to compliment him on having put in this very useful provision, which is an indication that it is regarded as important for a child to have uninterrupted attendance at school up to 14 years of age. I think the Minister has taken a very useful and progressive step in regard to this matter, and I am glad that he has been converted to the proper point of view.
I can only hope that we have heard the last of it, but I am afraid we have not.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 6 to 12, inclusive, not moved.
The following amendments were agreed to:—
13. In page 6, lines 9 to 13, to delete section 7 (2), and substitute the following sub-section:—
(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed as rendering unlawful—
(a) the exercise of manual labour by a child lawfully detained in a certified industrial or reformatory school, or
(b) the receipt by a child of instruction in manual labour in any school, or
(c) the employment of a child by a relative, if such employment does not prevent or interfere with the attendance of the child at school or the obtaining by the child of proper benefit from such attendance.
In this sub-section the word "relative" in relation to a child means a person—
(i) who is the father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, stepfather, step-mother, brother, sister, half-brother or half-sister of such child, and
(ii) who maintains such child in such person's dwellinghouse.
—(Minister for Education).
14. In page 6, Section 7 (3), to delete all words from the words "or any regulation" in line 15 to the word "section" in line 17.—(Minister for Education).
15. In page 6, Section 7 (4), to delete lines 22 and 23 and the word "section" in line 24.—(Minister for Education).
I move amendment No. 16:—
In pages 6 and 7, to delete all from line 47, page 6, to line 19, page 7, inclusive.
This is to delete Section 9, which should have been deleted on Committee Stage.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19 not moved.
I move amendment No. 20:—
In page 9, line 28, before Section 17, to insert a new section as follows:—
Section 15 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion in sub-section (1), line 7, after the word "who" of the words "through illness or otherwise in his opinion without a satisfactory reason."
On the Committee Stage I urged that it was placing an unnecessary burden on a teacher, on the one hand, and placing unnecessary documents before the school attendance committee on the other, to oblige a teacher to submit particulars of every child who was absent from school on any day no matter what the reason was. My amendment is intended to provide that, where a child is absent through illness, or for any other reason which the principal teacher is satisfied is a good and legitimate explanation of his absence, the teacher will not have to be troubled by reporting that case to the school attendance committee, and the school attendance committee will not have the information in which it is really interested—that is information about children who are absent from school without adequate explanation— smothered under and smathered over by information that they do not want at all, that is information about children who are absent through illness or who have a good and adequate reason, in the principal teacher's judgment, for their absence.
As I explained on the last stage, I think it would be invidious to put this duty upon the teacher. The teacher has certain functions to fulfil vis-a-vis the children, and, if he is called upon to take the place of the court and determine whether or not a child is absent through a reasonable cause, I am afraid we are going to have serious difficulties. Perhaps the whole scheme of the administration of the School Attendance Act may be affected. I see what the Deputy has in mind; I indicated already that I have sympathy with his view, but nevertheless I do not find myself in a position to accept the amendment. I think the House will recognise that parents would find that the teachers, for reasons which they considered satisfactory, were compelled to discriminate between one child and another, saying that one child was absent for a good and satisfactory reason and another child was not, and I think perhaps the teachers would not welcome that. In any case, I would ask the Deputy not to press the amendment.
I am afraid the Minister understands what is in my mind, and yet he opposes it. However, I am not prepared to press the matter to a division.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 21:—
In page 9, before Section 18, to insert the following new section:—
(1) Whenever it appears to a body (being a school attendance committee or a rotatory sub-committee) from the report of a school attendance officer that a parent has failed or neglected to cause his child (being a child to which the Principal Act applies) to attend school in accordance with the Principal Act or this Act, that body may serve on the parent a notice requiring him to attend before such body at a specified time (not being earlier than seven days after the date of such service) and place and then and there to show cause why proceedings should not be instituted against him in respect of such failure or neglect.
(2) If any person upon whom a notice has been served under sub-section (1) of this section fails to attend in compliance with the notice, such person shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten shillings.
This is really to fulfil an undertaking which I gave to accept in principle Deputy Mulcahy's amendment on the Committee Stage. The first portion of the amendment provides that a school attendance committee or a sub-committee of that body may, on a report from the school attendance officer, order a parent to appear before them to show cause why proceedings should not be instituted against him in respect of his failure or neglect to send his child to school. The warning notice in the Principal Act goes out. I explained to the House that it takes up a considerable amount of time, and that one of the objects of the measure is to speed up proceedings against parents who are clearly neglecting their duty to their children.
This first paragraph, therefore, is, as it were, a substitute for the warning notice. It puts it beyond question that the committee has legal power to enforce attendance before them of parents who are not carrying out their duties. With regard to the second portion of the amendment, I am advised that it is necessary that some penalty should accompany this first paragraph. Therefore, I am proposing that parents who fail to attend when served with notice by the school attendance committee shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding 10/-. That would mean that if the school attendance committee decides to prosecute a parent, it may charge him, first, with the absence of his child or children from school, and, secondly, with having aggravated the offence by failing to appear before the committee when summoned to do so. It would then be a matter for the court whether a fine should or should not be imposed. I am advised that a legal sanction of this kind is necessary.
I am glad that the Minister has been able to accept the suggestion that forms the body of this amendment. I indicated, when he was speaking about it on the Committee Stage, that I did not like the second part of my amendment, which dealt with the penalty for an offence; but I think it is quite sound to arrive at the conclusion that you cannot get away from a penalty of some kind. It will be interesting to see to what extent the school attendance committees bring themselves to avail of this new power. I think if they do, it might solve a lot of their difficulties and bring about a better spirit on the part of parents who are difficult at the present time. I think a difficult parent has a better chance of being brought to reason by a discussion with a school attendance committee than by being brought into the atmosphere of a court. I would like to be sure, however, that the putting in of this amendment in this way does not impose a duty on the school attendance committee in every case to get a parent to appear before them, before they take proceedings, because I think it might be a matter of difficulty to put the school attendance committee into that position. I take it that they will have the same power of proceeding, after due notice, to take a parent to the court, without bringing that parent before them.
I hope it will not be taken that there is any compulsion whatever on the school attendance committee to bring parents before them. The warning notice clause in the original Act goes by the board. If the committee wish, they can prosecute the parents straight away, or the Gárda Síochána, as the case may be, may act similarly. But it gives the committee the opportunity of bringing parents before them, as a way out, as an alternative to the taking of proceedings immediately they receive the report from the school attendance officers. We are not compelling the committee to bring parents before them. If they are dealing with recalcitrant parents, who have already been in trouble over the absence of their children from school, and who are clearly neglectful, I hope the committee and the Gárda Síochána will realise that every possible step ought to be taken to bring them before the courts as speedily as possible. The object of the legislation is to ensure speed. I hope all concerned will take notice and that greater efforts will be made to bring defaulters before the courts, and I hope the courts will deal with them as they deserve.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 22:—
In page 11, Section 20 (7), to delete all words from the word "other" in line 17 to the word "Act" in line 18.
This is to secure that the Gárda Síochána shall operate the section dealing with the education of the children of vagrants in the county borough and borough areas as well as in the rural areas. The Minister for Justice has consented to permit the Gárdaí to operate this section everywhere in the State, and I am very glad that he has done so.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 23, which is purely consequential:—
In page 11, to delete lines 25 to 33, Section 20 (8).
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 24 is also consequential. I move:—
In page 11, Section 20 (9), to delete line 35 and substitute the words "under the immediately preceding sub-section, he may take".
Amendment agreed to.
Question—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
If there is no objection, I should like the Fifth Stage to be taken now.
I would like the Minister to leave the Fifth Stage over until to-morrow, because there is one point arising out of Section 13 with which it will be necessary to deal. In my view it is introducing a new and a very grave matter into school attendance legislation. It is making it possible to send a child to an industrial school for a long period for nonattendance at the ordinary school. We have arrived at so many satisfactory conclusions in the discussion of this measure, that I think it would be advisable to clear that particular situation a little further. Perhaps the Minister will leave over the Fifth Stage so that we will have an opportunity of becoming a little clearer on that point?
Fifth Stage ordered for Thursday, 26th November.
