Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 15 Jun 1967

Vol. 229 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - School Attendance (Amendment) Bill, 1967: Second Stage.

Minister for Education (Mr. O'Malley)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The purpose of this amending Bill is three-fold:

(a) to facilitate the serving of warning notices on parents of children who are absenting themselves from school;

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

(c) to raise the maxima of certain fines imposed under the 1926 Act.

Under the 1926 Act, before a summons may be served on a defaulting parent, a warning notice must first be served 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 and 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. I propose, 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 virtually indispensable in cases of incorrigible absenteeism and emphatically so where there is a question of the child's committal to an industrial school. I am advised that the purpose of the Act would best be served by the introduction of a provision specifically designed to ensure the attendance of the child when required; this I now propose to do.

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, that is 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. I propose, therefore, to amend the relevant sections of the Act by increasing the maxima 20/- and 40/-to £5 and £10 respectively.

In order to tighten up procedure further I also propose to introduce certain drafting amendments, on Committee Stage, to sections 2 and 3 of the Bill.

Mr. L'Estrange

This Bill brings the school attendance legislation up to date and tightens up the procedure. The Minister should be careful about the section ordering children to be produced in court. I know there are children—perhaps more in the cities than elsewhere—whose attendance at school it is difficult to ensure. Perhaps the Government and those concerned could try to advise parents and encourage them to send their children to school. It is only as a last resort that children should be apprehended and brought to court.

In the city there are school attendance officers. They are probably the best people to deal with children. It is a pity that service could not be extended to the country because it is a fact that when a garda calls to the house to bring children to school, it has a bad effect, in many cases, on the children. I wonder would there be any possibility of having that service extended to the country areas? We agree with the Bill.

Mr. James Tully

We also believe the Bill is necessary but there are a couple of comments I should like to make. I am not too happy about the section which gives authority to a garda to apprehend or arrest children without the parents being present. We have to be very careful about that. Under the law as it stands at present, the parents or guardians would have to be present. It would be a pity if that were so relaxed that a garda could stop a child on the street and arrest him or her no matter what the age of the child, because he or she was not attending at school. That could possibly be abused. I should hate to see a child of tender years being taken into the custody of the law. There must be some protection in this matter of arresting a child without the parents or guardian being present. I agree that there are parents who would not open the door. I also know that there are parents who deliberately keep children at home. That is something we do not like.

I also understand that it has become the practice in a certain type of factory which employs juvenile labour not to be too particular about the age of the child when starting work. Officially they are supposed to be 14 years, but it does occur that they start at 13 or 13½ years. If the inspection of the school attendance record were not too exact, we could find child labour being re-introduced. My Party agree with me that the school leaving age should be raised to 16 years and the sooner the better. The fact that the social welfare provisions do not make arrangements for the insurance of children under 16 years tends to help this sort of thing. If they had to get an insurance card, they would have to produce their birth certificates. The employer could not then pretend he did not know the age of the child. I also understand that in some local authority institutions it is not unusual to find girls of 13 years working as wardsmaids and kitchen helps. This should not be allowed, and any assistance the Minister wants to prevent that from happening should be given to him by the House, as I am sure it will be.

With regard to fines, it is only reasonable that the fines should be increased if there are people who care so little about their children's future that they do not insist on sending them to school, or deliberately keep them away. This is wrong and the Minister is perfectly right in deciding that the fine should be more substantial than it is at present.

A difficulty arises in the country districts where children may have to travel four or five miles to school. It is all very well to say that public transport is to be laid on, but this year and next year it will not be possible to supply transport in all areas. This means that there will continue to be areas in which children will have to travel over bad roads to the nearest school, and there may be a record of these children being unable to attend at school when the weather is bad. I am sure this could be taken into account if the question of a prosecution should arise, because the parents might be penalised, not for abusing the children or neglecting them, but because they tried to protect them from ill health by refusing to allow them to travel long distances to school when the weather was bad.

Mr. Briscoe

I too should like to welcome this amendment of the Act of 1926. I know that the school attendance officers will welcome this Bill too because up to now their job has been most frustrating. So far as the Garda and the courts are concerned, this Bill will make the machinery operate much more smoothly. In my opinion, any parent who denies his child the right to be educated is an enemy of society, and I would not spare him in any way the inconvenience of going to court. This amending Bill is most welcome and I know it will be very well received.

Dr. Gibbons

There is only one point I should like to make. On most occasions when children are kept at home from school, they are ill. Fortunately it may be only one illness during a year but some children may suffer from chronic illness, such as bronchitis, and they may be ill for one or two weeks and this pattern may be repeated occasionally throughout the year. Most parents are particularly anxious about such children and in the circumstances mentioned by Deputy Tully, they may be kept at home for a day or two due to bad weather because the parents feel they might get a cold or may have been advised to take particular care of such children in such circumstances.

It may not be necessary to send for a doctor but I can see a pattern arising in which their enforced absence from school for periods througout the year might give rise to the necessity for a medical certificate. This would place an unusual burden on many parents. As a remedy I suggest that the parents of such children should be entitled to get a certificate stating that the children are suffering from a particular illness because of which it might be necessary to keep them from school for one or two days during a particular period. I suggest it should be sufficient for the parents to submit this certificate and that this would exempt them in respect of such children, would leave them free to keep such children at home on a bad day and that they would not have to answer for it. Most teachers know the families in their areas who are anxious to get education for their children and they also know those who are not. I think my suggestion would help the administration of the Act.

Mr. O'Malley

I am grateful for the manner in which the House has received this proposal. On the points raised by Deputies L'Estrange and Tully, I should like to point out that it is only as a last resort that a child is brought before the court. It arises only when the question of sending the child to an industrial school is being considered. That is the only time. I quite agree it should be only as a last resort.

Mr. James Tully

Does the Minister not consider it is establishing a precedent in law if a child can be arrested without the parents' knowledge?

Mr. O'Malley

If the question of sending a child to an industrial school has to be considered, then the child must be brought before the court. There must be a means of ensuring that he will be in court.

Mr. L'Estrange

Place the onus on the parents to produce the child in court.

Mr. O'Malley

As I pointed out, we could not be sure that a parent would do so.

Mr. James Tully

Arrest the parent rather than the child.

Mr. L'Estrange

It would be fairer to arrest the parent.

Mr. O'Malley

The parent might be arrested but we still would not get the child. If the question of sending the child to an industrial school arises, the child must be before the court because the district justice might require to question the child, to see him, to learn about his background. It might be a child on whom it would not be necessary to take action. In any event, I do not think there need be any undue anxiety about this because these things can be done in a discreet way and if the co-operation of the parents exists, there is no probability of the child being arrested and marched through the streets. He can be told to go and if he does not, a garda can go to the house and bring him up.

There is an Act to prevent the employment of children before they reach the age of 14 years. It is true that the Government have come to a decision to raise the school leaving age to 15 years by 1970. I agree with Deputy James Tully on this point: I should like to see the age raised to 16 years. However, this matter will be re-examined as to how far we can go. I think it is everyone's wish—it was the recommendation of the Commission on Juvenile Employment—that the leaving age should be 16 years. It is inevitable, and even though we may initially only jump from 14 years to 15 years, we shall eventually raise the age to 16 years when all factors have been taken into consideration. The question of employment of a child after compulsory school leaving age is, of course, outside the scope of this Bill. It involves a big social problem in which other Ministers and other Departments are concerned. We all deprecate attempts that have been made throughout the years—and I am sorry to say are still made by certain employers—to exploit child labour.

Mr. James Tully

They take them on at 14 years and knock them off at 16 years because their fingers are not nimble enough.

Mr. O'Malley

The only answer is to schedule certain employments into which children will not be allowed even after school leaving age—jobs such as messenger boys, menial tasks involving the children being out in all sorts of weather. However this is outside the scope of the Bill.

I am grateful to Deputy Briscoe for his comments. In reply to Deputy Gibbons, I do not think there will be any difficulty in accepting the type of medical certificate he suggested. I agree that cases such as he mentioned can and do arise and I will have a look into his points. Any reasonable excuse, such as illness, will be accepted for absence. I should point out, though, that these things could be abused. Medical certificates are not necessary for short absences, only for long ones.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 20th June, 1967.