Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 3 Dec 1942

Vol. 27 No. 3

School Attendance Bill, 1942—Second Stage.

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

An tAire Oideachais (Tomás O Deirg):

An tAcht Freastail Scoile do tháinig i bhfeidhm i 1926, ba é ba phríomh-chuspóir dó a chinntiú go dtabharfaí oideachas oireamhnach do pháistí idir bliadhna agus 14 bliadhna d'aois; agus is chun an cuspóir sin do chur i bhfeidhm níos éifeachtaighe do rinneadh na feabhsuighthe atá sa mBille seo.

Táthar ag brath an scéal do mhíniú maidir le páistí atá ag fagháil oideachais taobh amuigh de Scoileanna Náisiúnta, nó de Scoileanna aitheanta (Alt 2), nó de scoileanna eile a bhfuil aithint nó deimhniú aca ón Aire (Alt 5 d'Acht 1926). Sa mBille seo, freisin, tá coingheallacha speisialta a thoirmeascfas fostú páistí faoi 14 bliadhna d'aois; agus, ina theannta sin, baineann sé le hoideachas páistí lucht siubhail, agus tugann sé cumhachta breise do Choistí agus d'Oifigigh Freastail Scoile chun an tAcht do chur i bhfeidhm níos éifeachtaighe ná mar rinneadh go dtí seo.

Tuismightheoirí ar bith ag a bhfuil páistí idir 6 bliadhna agus 14 bliadhna d'aois, tá sé d'oibliogóid orra fá láthair (do réir Ailt 4 d'Acht 1926) na páistí sin do chur ag freastal Scoile Náisiúnta, nó Scoil oireamhnach eile, ar feadh seal áirithe ama, gach lá dá mbíonn an scoil ar oscailt le haghaidh teagaisc—isé sin muna bhfuil leithscéal réasúnta aca gan a dhéanamh. Má tá páiste ag fagháil bun-oideachais oireamhnaigh in áit ar bith taobh amuigh de Scoil Náisiúnta nó scoil oireamhnach eile, féadtar glacadh faoi'n Acht le sin mar leithscéal réasúnta. Ach níl sé mínighthe san Acht cadé an sort oideachais do bhéadh ionghlachtha i geás mar sin. Táthar ag brath sin d'athrú i nAlt 4 den Bhille seo. Maidir le páistí atá ag fagháil oideachais taobh amuigh de Scoil Náisiúnta, de scoil oireamhnach nó de scoil aitheanta, ní measfar iad do bheith ag fagháil oideachais oireamhnaigh, mura mbídh an t-oideachas sin deimhnighthe ag an Aire. Lena aghaidh sin, féadfaidh an tAire a ordú go gcuirfear triail oideachais ar na páistí; agus tugann Alt 20 den Bhille cumhachta breise don Aire maidir le scrúdú scol atá faoi n-a dhlighinse agus atá dhá bhfreastal ag páistí a mbaineann an tAcht leo. Do réir Ailt 20, beidh sé d'fhiachaibh ar Bhainisteóir nó ar Stiúrthóir a leithéide sin de scoil í do leigint dá scrúdú am ar bith a mbeidh sí ar oscailt le haghaidh gnáth-theagaisc, agus an lucht freastail do leigint dá scrúdú, mar an gcéadna. Féadfar peannaid do chur ar Bhainisteóir nó ar Stiúrthóir ar bith nach ndéanfaidh na riaghlacha sin do choimhlíonadh. Tuismightheoirí páistí atá ag fagháil oideachais taobh amuigh de Scoil Náisiúnta nó scoil oireamhnach nó aitheanta eile, beidh sé d'oibliogóid orra, do réir an Bhille seo, fuagra agus gach eolas riachtanach do thabhairt don Ughdarás Feidhmiúcháin. Dá thoradh sin, tá na páistí go léir dá gcur ar an gcomhthrom céadna i láthair an Dlighidh, agus tá Alt 42 (go háirithe Mír 3, ii) den Bhunreacht dá chur i ngníomh.

Thárla roinnt léirmheasa sa Dáil mar gheall ar an ngléas atá ann chun oireamhnacht oideachais do dheimhniú, agus do rinneadh tagairt do pháistí atá ag fagháil oideachais taobh amuigh den Stát. Ar feadh na sé bliadhan déag seo thart, faoi Acht 1926, ba Chúirt Dlighidh do chinnfeadh ciaca bhí bun-oideachas oireamhnach dá fhagháil ag a leithéidí sin de pháistí nó nach raibh. Ní modh sásamhail é sin. Faoi'n mBille seo táthar ghá choimeád ag an Aire a chinneadh ciaca tá nó nach bhfuil oideachas oireamhnach dhá ghagháil ag na páistí seo, go direach mar tá breitheamhnas ar cheist na hoireamhnachta dhá fhágáil faoi chúram an Aire freisin i gcás páistí atá ag fagháil oideachais taobh amuigh de Scoil Náisiúnta nó de Scoil oireamhnach nó aitheanta eile.

Faoi Alt 7 de Acht 1926, do tugadh cumhacht don Aire riaghlacha do dhéanamh do chuirfeadh toirmeasc áirithe ar fhostú páistí, ach ní dearnadh riaghlacha ar bith faoi'n Alt sin. Do fuarathas amach nach raibh curisteach ar bith dhá dhéanamh ar scoil-fhreastal na bpáistí le linn a bhfostú taobh amuigh d'uaireanna scoile. De thoradh na ndíospóireacht do thárla sa Dáil, tá foráileadh speisealta in Alt 8 den Bhille chun toirmeasc, faoi pheannaid, do chur ar fhostú páistí faoi 14 bliadhna d'aois, taobh amuigh de fhostú ag duine gaolmhar agus gan sin féin do bheith ag cur isteach ar an scoil-fhreastal.

Chun a chur in áirithe mar ba chóir go dtabharfaí oideachas do pháistí lucht siubhail, ní mór bheith smaointeach cúramach, agus bheith cleachtach ar chúrsaí riaracháin. Go dtí seo, níor bhféidir coingheallacha an Achta do chur i bhfeidhm maidir le páistí lucht siubhail nach bhfanann ach tamall goirid i límistéar amháin. Meastar go bhfuil fá thuairim 950 de na páistí seo ann agus go bhfuil fá thuairim 700 aca nach féidir a rádh go bhfuil oideachas ar bith acu dhá fhagháil. Táthar ag brath an scéal sin do leigheas tré Alt 21 den Bhille— alt a chuirfeas d'fhiachaibh ar lucht siubhail eolas i dtaobh aoise agus oideachais a gcuid páistí do thabhairt do na Gárdaí gach bliadhain, agus— más riachtanach é—na páistí do leigint faoi scrúdú chun a dheimhniú ciaca tá siad ag fagháil oideachais oireamhnaigh nó nach bhfuil. Féadfar fíneáil do dhéanamh ar dhaoine nach gcoimhliónfaidh na coingheallacha seo. Beidh sé de chumhacht ag na Gárdaí ceisteanna do chur ar lucht siubhail, agus, gan barántas ar bith, beidh sé de chumhacht aca breith ar lucht siubhail a mbeidhfear in amhras nach bhfuil siad ag coimhlíonadh coingheallacha an Achta. Féadfar páistí a leithéidí sin do chur dhá gcoimeád in áit oireamhnach choinneála, agus féadfaidh an Chúirt Ughdaráis Inniúla iad a chur chuig Scoil Saothair nó iad a chur faoi chúram duine ghaolmhair nó duine éigin eile a bhéas oireamhnach. Féadfar foráilte an ailt seo do theorannú tré Ordú, ionnas nach ndéanfar a bhfeidhmiú ach i gcás páistí d'aois áirithe ar bith fá leith, óir táthar ag brath—más gádh é—an cheist seo d'ionnsuighe do réir a chéile agus na coingheallacha do chur i bhfeidhm' sna cásanna is géire riachtanas ar dtús.

Ionnas go mba thapaidhe láimhseálfar cásanna neamh-fhreastail scoile, bhéarfaidh an Bille seo a thuilleadh cumhachta do Oifigigh Freastail 'sna Condae-Bhuirgí agus i mBuirg Dhún Laoghaire ionnus go gceistneochaidh siad páiste ar bith a bhéas faoi chosamhlacht bheith in aois scoile agus a bhéas fá na sráideanna in am scoile (Alt 17 den Bhille). Más riachtanach é, féadfaidh an tOifigeach Freastail Scoile an páiste do thabhairt leis go tigh a chuid tuismightheóir agus na tuismightheóirí féin do cheistniú. Ina theannta sin, bhéarfar a thuilleadh caoi do na hOifigigh Freastail Scoile le heólas riachtanach d'fhagháil ó rollaí na scol agus ó na hoidi o am go ham (Alt 15). Chun moill do sheachaint i bhfeidhmiú an Achta in aghaidh tuismightheoir dhéanfas faillighe ina ndualgas dá bpáistí, táthar ag brath deireadh do chur leis na réamhfhreagraí bhí riachtanach go dtí seo sul ar bh'fhéidir an dligheadh do chur ar thuismightheoirí mar gheall ar chéad-chóir faoi'n Acht (Alt 17 d'Acht 1926). Tá Acht 1926 i bhfeidhm anois le sé bliadhna déag. Ba chóir go mbeadh a fhios ag tuismighteoirí agus ag gáirdiain anois cadiad a ndualgais do réir an dlighidh maidir le scoil-fhreastal a gcuid páistí. Ar an adhbhar sin, níl riachtanas le réamhfhuagraí. Chun a thuilleadh luathais do chur i bhfeidhmiú an Achta, cuirfear deireadh leis an gcoingheall faoi nár bh'fhéidir páistí do chur chuig Scoil Saothair gan an tuismightheoir do bheith cionntuighthe dhá uair ar a luighead. Ní mar gheall ar neamh-fhreastal scoile amháin a cuirtear páistí chuig Scoileanna Saothair. Bíonn fáthanna eile ann i gcómhnuidhe —na páistí do bheith imthighthe ó smacht, bheith ag diúltú dul ar scoil, bheith leigthe i bhfaillighe ar fad ag na tuismightheoirí, bheith faoi chúisiú ag na Gárdaí, &rl.,—agus, go dearbhtha, is annamh cás nach mbíonn i láthair na Cúirte dó nó trí d'iarrata sul a ndéantar Ordú Coimiteála. Ach, i gcásanna fíor-dhona ina mbeadh fáthanna eile seachas neamh-fhreastal scoile—cúisiú ag na Gárdaí, nó faillighe na dtuismightheoir, nó domhúinteacht, nó bheith imthighthe ó smacht &rl.—sé sin le rádh, i gcás ar bith inar léir go mb'é leas an pháiste é, ba chóir cumhacht do bheith ag an gCúirt é do chur chuig Scoil Saothair an chéad-uair a bhéarfaí i láthair na Cúirte é. Is follus as obair na gCúirt nach ndéanfaidís úsáid ar bith míréasúnta den chumhacht seo.

Is é is cuspóir d'Alt 16 den Bhille an tAcht do dhéanamh níos éifeachtaige chun gan leigint do thuismightheoirí a gcuid páiste do choinneáil sa mbaile ón scoil gan fáth maith dleaghthach. Do réir an Ailt seo, is cúis peannaide do thuismightheóir gan fios fátha an neamh-fhreastail do chur in iúl do'n árd-oide taobh istigh de thrí lá. Cuirfidh Alt 6 den Bhille a thuilleadh nirt i bhfeidhmiú an Achta tréna chur d'fhiachaibh ar an árd-oide liosta i gceann gach seachtmhaine do thabhairt don Ughdarás Feidhmiucháin d'ainmneacha agus de sheolta páistí do cuireadh den rolla. Ba chóir go gcuirfeadh sin i gcumas na nUghdarás Feidhmiúcháin aire do thabhairt gan mhoill do chásanna neamh-fhreastail scoile a bhféadfaí bheith tamall i gan fhios dóibh do réir mar tá an scéal fá láthair. Rud eile, déanfaidh an Bille seo míniú níos deimhne ar na coingheallacha faoi n-ar ceadmhach páistí d'aistriú ó Scoil Náisiúnta go dtí scoil eile (Alt 6) agus ughdróchaidh sé peannaid do chur ar thuismightheoirí dhéanfas páistí d'aistriú ar mhí —réir na gcoingheall.

Le Coistí Freastail Scoile bhaineas feabhsuighthe eile atá an Bille seo a dhéanamh ar Acht 1926. Isiad na Coistí seo na hUghdaráis Feidhmiúcháin faoi'n Acht i gCondae-Bhuirg Bhaile Átha Cliath, Chorcaighe agus Phort Láirge agus i mBuirg Dhún Laoghaire. Ceaptar iad go páirteach idir na hUghdaráis Áiteamhla agus an tAire, agus tá Bainisteóirí agus Oidí Scol Náisiúnta ar na baill atá atá ionnta.

Thug siad seirbhís mhaith uatha go dtí seo, agus tá súil agam go dtabharfaidh siad an deagh-sheirbhís chéadna uatha san am atá romhainn. Mar gheall ar théarmaí an Achta um Bainistí Chontae, ba riachtanach Alt áirithe do chur isteach sa mBille seo, Alt 9, agus isé is éifeacht don Alt sin gurb ionann an bhaint a bheas ag na Bainisteoirí Condae leis na Coistí Freastail Scoile gona gcuid Oifigeach agus an bhaint atá aca leis na Coistí eile d'Ughdaráis Aiteamhla faoi'n Acht um Bainistí Chontae.

Is ag an mBainisteóir Condae a bheas ceapadh na nOifigeach, maraon le na stiúradh, a smacht agus íocaidheacht a dtuarastal agus a bpinsin, do réir fhoráileadh Acht na nUdarás Aitiúil (Oifigigh agus Fostaithe), 1926. Is ag na Coistí Freastail Scoile amháin a bheas ughdarás chun dligheadh do thionnscnamh mar gheall ar chortha faoi Acht 1926 agus faoi'n mBille seo. Bhéarfaidh Alt 18 den Bhille seo a thuilleadh cumhachta dóibh san obair sin, óir cuirfidh sé ina gcumas tuismightheoirí do ghairm chuca féachaint an bhfuil fáth dleaghthach ann gan dligheadh do chur ortha mar gheall ar neamh-fhreastal a gcuid páiste. Thríd an socrú seo, táthar ag súil go mbeidhfear i ndon a lán cás deacair do réidhteach gan iad do chur i láthair na gCúirt.

Ailt eile bhaineas le Freastal Scoile, tá foráil ionnta chun FóChoistí Sealaidheachta do cheapadh do réir mar do mheasfadh an tAire iad do bheith riachtanach (Alt 12). Do tionólfaí na Fó-Choistí seo uair sa tseachtmhain, nó uair sa gcoicís, do réir chomhairle an Aire, ionnas go luathóchaí gnó an Scoil-fhreastail. Nidh eile, i gcás Coiste-Bhall atá ina mBainisteóirí nó ina bPatrúin Scol, tá Alt 11 ghá fhoráil go bhféadfar lucht ionaid do cheapadh dóibh, ionnas go mbeadh tinnreamh maith ag cruinnighthe na gCoiste agus na bhFó-Choiste.

Gidh gur feidhmigheadh an tAcht go réasúnta maith i gcuid de na limistéir, nílim sásta leis an scoil-fhreastal i gcoitchinne, agus tá sé chomh hole sin i mórán condae agus gur cúis imnidhe dom é. An tseachtmhain seo thart féin, do léigh mé ar na Nuachtáin Seachtmhaine go raibh ceithre chás déag agus dá fhichid i gCúirt i lár na hEireann mar gheall ar neamh-fhreastal scoile, agus gur bh'éigean don Bhreitheamh Dúithche rabhadh géar do thabhairt uaidh go gcuirfeadh sé an pheannaid iomlán ar thuismightheóirí san am atá le teacht.

Do réir na bhfigiúr is deireannaighe fuarathas, 84 sa gcéad is scoil-fhreastal don tír go léir—rud is ionann agus 16 sa gcéad as láthair ón scoil, gach lá, de na páistí a mbaineann an tAcht leo. I gCondae-Bhuirgí Bhaile Átha Cliath, Chorcaighe agus Phort Láirge, mar a bhfuil na Coistí Freastail Scoile ina nUghdaráis Feidhmiúchán, do rinneadh freastal níos fearr, ar feadh tréimhse de bhliadhanta, ná mar rinneadh sa gcuid eile den tír. Bliadhanta áirithe do bhí an freastal chomh hárd le 85 agus le 87 sa gcéad ins na Condae-Bhuirgí, ach ní dóigh liom go bhfuil sin fén árd go leór. Maidir le cuid de na límistéir eile—Corcaigh, Ciarraighe, Luimneach, Laoighis agus Lughbhadh —chím go raibh an freastal chomh hárd le 85 per cent.; ach i mórán eile aca— Longphort, Muineachán, an Mhidhe, Dún na nGall, Cill Mhanntáin, Cill Dara agus Sligeach, cuir i gcás—do bhí an freastal chomh híseal le 82 agus le 80 per cent., rud is ionann agus ó 18 go 20 per cent. as láthair ón scoil, gach lá, de na páistí a mbaineann an tAcht leo.

Is deimhin nach adhbhar sásaimh an scéal do bheith mar sin. Is léir go bhféadfaí feabhas mór do chur ar an scoil-fhreastal. Tá súil agam go dtiocfaidh cuid den fheabhas sin ón mBille seo nuair a bheas sé ina Acht; ach ba mhaith liom a iarraidh go dian ar na tuismightheoirí, ar dhaoine atá faoi áird ag na tuismightheoirí, agus ar na hUghdaráis Feidhmiúcháin a lándícheall do dhéanamh, ionnas go rachaidh an scoil-fhreastal go mór i bhfeabhas.

Mr. M. Hayes:

I think this is a Bill the principle of which we must accept, and the principle of which has already been adopted. Obviously, from the figures given by the Minister, and the figures we know ourselves, there is undoubtedly a need for a higher school attendance. There are people—I am afraid I am one of them myself—who regret the necessity for adopting the principle, which seems to be constantly extending, to give more and more power to the State as against the individual, and even as against the parents. It seems to be inevitable that that power should extend. In this Bill, for example, there is considerably more power given to the Minister than he was given in 1926. Perhaps the Minister himself is not to blame for that. It is merely a tendency which we have to expect from the gradual progress of Government towards more and more control of people's lives. However, in this particular case, once you have schools provided free for everybody up to the age of 14, it does seem that in our modern society you must enforce school attendance. The Minister has given figures. The figures for Dublin show in 1940 and 1941 an absence of 11,000 pupils daily, an absence of something over 13 per cent., and, as the Minister stated, the absences in parts of the country are considerably greater than that.

One of the things that arise from the point of view of the teacher seems to me to be that under all these Acts more and more obligations are placed upon the teacher to become a clerk. Clerical work—the keeping of rolls, the making up of returns, the furnishing of reports—is becoming more and more the work of teachers and particularly of head teachers. It is much easier to inspect a teacher's roll and a teacher's returns than to inspect the actual teaching that he does. The teacher who has the capacity to inspire his pupils, which is, I think, the outstanding merit of the good teacher and what a great many teachers do, may in fact be extremely bad at keeping rolls and keeping returns but, unfortunately, it is the eternal returns which are examined rather more, I think, and rather more easily, than the actual work done. I came in contact with that myself first in the technical schools a great many years ago and, perhaps, I am biased because I am a bad writer and bad at keeping rolls and accustomed to a different system, but it struck me that if I could keep the rolls very satisfactorily and mark the "presents" in a particular way, that would be my great merit. However, this Bill when it becomes an Act will impose certain added responsibilities of that kind on head teachers and, while the head teacher of the very big schools in Dublin, with I think it is eight assistants, is relieved from teaching, a great many others are not and this will add to their difficulties in that particular direction. The problem is a big one when you consider the percentage of absences.

There are certain points about the Bill itself in detail about which I would like some more information, but we can, perhaps, deal with these points in Committee. However, in order to save time in regard to the putting down of amendments I may perhaps mention some of them now. Section 4 gives much more power to the Minister than was possessed before with regard to a child who is not going to a national school, a suitable school, or a recognised school, a child kept at home or a child, for example, who is going to school outside the jurisdiction of the State. The Minister in his speech implied that they have power under this Bill to examine such a child to see whether in fact he attains to the right standard. The Minister did not indicate what standard that would be. He did say, I think, that they intended to enforce this matter gradually. There are certain classes of people whose children are at school outside the State for reasons not under their own control, for example, bank officials who are moved from places in the Six Counties to places within this particular State may find themselves in the position that they have children in Six-County schools. As far as the Bill is concerned, when it becomes an Act, they are, I think, breaking the law. I have no doubt that, as in many other cases, the law would perhaps not be too strictly administered, but although I have no sympathy whatever, and, of course, never had, with the kind of person who sends his child outside the State for education, I can still see that people may like to do that, and, I think, on consideration of the pros and cons, I would rather leave them that power than actually make it an offence to do so, unless the Minister is prepared to recognise the school. I would like to know something more as to how this particular Section 4 is going to work and, in the case of certain people living near the Border or whose employment is such that they may at one time be working on one side of the Border and at another time on the other side, I would like to know how they will fare, as far as children under 14 years of age are concerned, under Section 4.

There is another point: One of the main purposes of the Bill is to take a child into school at a particular age and to keep track of him until he is 14 years of age. I would like to suggest that, if that is going to be done, it would be much more easily done and a great deal of trouble might be saved at other points if, when a child first went to school, a birth certificate had to be furnished to the school. That birth certificate could be got, as under the Factory Acts, for a small sum, like 6d. I think, if that were done at the very beginning, it would, for example, solve the problem as to whether a child actually is four years of age and whether a parent who wants to put a child into an infants' school is submitting the child's correct age. Similarly, it would be much simpler, I think, if, under Section 5, when the child changes from his place of residence, notification were sent to the principal teacher of the school he was then attending. I do not mean necessarily notice in writing but, if the child were asked to give the new address to the principal teacher, it would be, I think, of considerable advantage and would save a good deal of trouble later on.

Complaint is made, I know—but in this matter I am not quite convinced myself—that it is very difficult to determine whether in fact a child that has been absent for, let us say, more than a week is ill and it is suggested that a medical certificate might be furnished, the argument being that if the child is from the kind of home where there is a family doctor he will have seen the doctor in any event, and if the child is not from such a home but is depending on a dispensary doctor, if his illness extends over five school days, he ought to have seen a dispensary doctor who might furnish a certificate. There are, of course, difficulties there because I do not know what machinery one could adopt or what fund one could use in order to pay for the certificate in that particular case.

There is another point, with regard to penalties. It should be said, perhaps, in mitigation of what I said myself in the beginning about the principle adopted, that the committees do in fact administer the Act in a very lenient manner and in a very considerate manner. A parent is never prosecuted unless he has been notified and sometimes parents are only prosecuted when they have appeared twice before a school attendance committee and no improvement has taken place in the child's attendance. In spite of that, when the parent appears before the court, the fines imposed are, as far as my experience goes, of a very, very, trivial character. The cost to the Dublin Corporation—I am speaking about Dublin particularly now—is at least 3/- for bringing a parent before a court. Sometimes the parent is fined 6d. and 1/- costs. Seeing that the case is proved and that only when a case has been proved and is a very bad case is there any penalty at all imposed, one would imagine the minimum penalty would be the minimum amount that the corporation has spent to bring the parent to court.

With regard to the provision for committing a child to an industrial school, in Section 19, I am not quite clear about the Minister's explanation of that. The child, he suggests, must be uncontrollable—is that right?

Mr. Derrig:

The position is that up to the present the parent had to be found guilty of offences against the School Attendance Act on at least two occasions. It was only on the second occasion that the child could be sent to an industrial school. Now, I propose to change that, and to make it possible to have the child committed on the first occasion if, of course, the justice considers it necessary.

Mr. Hayes:

On that, the practice, I think, generally has been that a child committed to an industrial school is committed for a period of years, and I think the House ought to hesitate before it commits a child who has not attended school to an industrial school for a period of, let us say, four or five years. That seems entirely too long a period, and I feel that the practice that has been followed so far should not be maintained in regard to school attendance cases. A period of less than four years should be provided for in these cases. A child of eleven, for example, committed for five years to an industrial school because his father did not send him to school, appears to me to be rather badly treated unless there is some other evidence of the unsuitability of the home, for example. At any rate, that is a matter we can discuss on Section 19 itself.

There is just one other point, Sir. The Minister's original proposal in the Dáil with regard to the employment of school children was that he would make regulations. As an amendment in the Dáil, the Bill was altered so that there is a restriction, in Section 8, upon the employment of children and, as I read it, it is an entire restriction, that is to say, a child cannot be employed except by a relation in the degrees of kindred set out in the Bill.

One small point has been put to me with which I have a certain familiarity in Dublin and in country places, and that is that boys, and girls in some cases, under the age of 14, are employed as golf caddies: that they get, particularly in places like Baltray in the County Louth, Lahinch in the County Clare and in other places of that kind, comparatively easy and healthy outdoor employment during the week-ends which brings in a certain amount of money to them. It has been put to me that those particular people would be very much damnified if this section were held to apply to them: if it were held, for example, that a boy of 13 could not carry a set of golf clubs and earn a couple of shillings for doing so for a round of golf.

The Minister's answer, I am sure, will be that the section is all-embracing and that he has no power to make regulations. But in that particular instance—there may be others—there should be no objection to employment which does not interfere with school hours or with study, which brings in a certain amount of money and which, by no manner of means, can be said to be unhealthy. The wording of subsection (4) of Section 8,

"Where any school attendance officer suspects that any child is in employment in any premises in contravention of this section,"

would show that the kind of employment that was in the minds of those who suggested the amendment, and in the mind of the Minister when drafting the amendment, was indoor employment, of a factory nature, let us say. The other kind of employment to which I have referred would hardly come under that category. It is both remunerative and healthy, and in no way interferes with attendance at school. With that matter, and with other general matters, we can, I take it, deal on the Committee Stage of the Bill. I think the Bill itself is one which is praiseworthy in general.

Mr. O'Connell:

My main criticism of the Bill, in fact my only criticism of it, is that its introduction is belated. I believe it should have been introduced six years ago. Quite a number of the provisions contained in the Bill were suggested to the Minister as long ago as 1935. Since then, one set of pupils have passed through the schools. It is quite possible that their attendance during that period was quite indifferent and that, consequently, they now find themselves badly fitted for the battle of life. However, I welcome the Bill, even at this late stage. I think that, under it, the Minister is doing everything reasonably within his power to tighten up the school attendance law. It is, of course, one thing to make laws and another to see that they are properly and adequately administered. I myself am satisfied that the bad attendance at our schools, particularly in recent years—and there is ample evidence that the attendance was bad—is not due entirely, or even mainly, to the weaknesses in the Principal Act, but rather to the fact that the provisions of the Act were so inadequately applied and administered.

I do not wish to say where the blame lies. Neither am I going to attempt to apportion the blame, but I do know this, that in the early years, immediately after the passing of the Principal Act in 1926—it was brought into operation in 1927—there was a very marked improvement in the attendance at our schools. I am speaking now particularly of the non-scheduled areas, that is, the areas in which the Gárda Síochána are the enforcing authorities. In those early years there was in each barrack area a special Guard designated as school attendance officer. It was his duty to visit the schools in his district regularly, daily in most cases, to call up children who were absent, ask for an explanation and give them a talking to. He also visited the homes of parents where there were absentee children, and, generally, he acted as the school attendance officers in city areas act. His work produced very good results. As a rule, there were very few prosecutions, and, indeed, very few were needed. Some two or three years later, in 1929 or 1930, during the years of the economy cuts, the strength of most of the rural Gárda stations was reduced. Usually in those stations you had a sergeant and four Guards. It is estimated that the strength of about 500 of those stations was reduced from four Guards to three. When that was done, the Gárda authorities held that it was not possible for them to detail one member of the force to act as school attendance officer. The arrangement then made was that any member of the Gárda Síochána in a district might act as school attendance officer. It is natural to understand what followed.

What was everybody's business was nobody's business, so that no member of the force in a particular area felt that it was his particular business to look after school attendance unless he were specially ordered to do so, and that even if he were specially ordered to visit schools or to call on homes where there were absentee children the order was only for the time being. He did not regard that as his duty in general. The net result of all that was that in recent years the visits of the Gárda either to the schools or to parents' homes in their district where there were absentee children, were comparable to angels' visits. That had a psychological effect, if I may put it that way, on both the pupils and the parents, because they came to think that there was not very much importance now being attached to the observance of the school attendance law, and that perhaps it could be evaded more easily and with impunity.

There was another factor, one that still operates and one which, in my opinion, is more responsible than any other for the laxity that has crept into the enforcement of the school attendance law. That was the attitude of a number of district justices towards the Act. One has a certain hesitancy in criticising the action of the courts, but there are times when it must be done. Now, it may not be inappropriate to give here some extracts from a speech belivered by General O'Duffy when he was Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána. The speech was made during a discussion on school attendance at the teachers' congress in Cork in 1931. As I have said, General O'Duffy was Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána at the time, and in that position was primarily responsible for the administration of the Act. This is an extract from what he said on that occasion:—

"They were aware, he said, that it was the policy of the Government to throw the duties of newly-enacted legislation on the shoulders of the Gárda force. At present, 85 per cent. of their time was occupied in what they termed non-police work. He, personally, had not opposed the taking over of this new duty——"

He was referring there to the enforcement of the School Attendance Act.

"——because he felt it would be a noble and good work for the Guards to perform. He anticipated that he would get an increase in the strength of the force, but none was given. At the time of the passing of the Attendance Act, they had a sergeant and four Guards as a minimum strength in the various stations. Instead of getting an increase, that strength was reduced, in 500 stations, to a sergeant and three Guards, and they were still expected to enforce the Act. There were 19 schools in one sub-district in County Cavan, and the strength there was a sergeant and three Guards, and if they considered the work to be done in the matter of visits to houses, as well as to these schools, they would appreciate their difficulties. They wanted to be assured that public opinion was behind them in an anxiety for the enforcement of the Act. There was a special instance they had of the person who was fined 6d. for an offence under this Act, and who was fined 5/- at the same court for failing to have a donkey shod."

I should explain here that, as a matter of fact, the fine was 10/-. A person was fined 10/- in the same court for the offence of failing to have a donkey shod, on the same day that he was fined 6d. for an offence under the School Attendance Act. General O'Duffy goes on to say:

"That was a lesson from the bench to the Gárda Síochána. The Guards did not consider that public opinion was behind them in enthusiasm for the Act. In some places the district justices did not appear to take this Act as seriously as other Acts. They had a case in Waterford recently where the school attendance officer visited a certain house to get some particulars regarding the age of a child. He was ordered out. He did not move too quickly, and he was thrown out. He brought an action for assault against the owner of the house, and the case was dismissed. The justice said this man had a perfect right to throw him out. They would see that that was not any incentive to the Guards in that particular area to take the interest they might in their work. Unfortunately, they were not encouraged from the bench. Another point was that they did not wish it to be inferred that they were up against the people for trivial offences. He, personally, did not regard the failure of parents to send a child to school as a trivial offence, but a very serious one. But there is the danger that enforcing the School Attendance Act may render the Guards unpopular. This might be given as another excuse, but he thought the big point was the education of public opinion in this matter."

There are a few points in that speech which are deserving of special attention. There is the reference to the increased duties of the Guards, and the reduction instead of the expected increase in the strength of the Guards. There is the reference to public opinion and the anxiety of the Guards to retain their popularity with the people, which might be lost unless they overlooked what they were led to believe by certain decisions of the court were in fact trivial offences. They were led to believe that offences under the School Attendance Act were trivial offences. I am satisfied from the reports which I have received over the last eight or nine years from various parts of the country, and from statements made by the Minister himself on more than one occasion, that the state of things has not changed materially since 1931, in regard to those matters which were raised in General O'Duffy's speech. In fact, if there has been any change, it has not been for the better. That is why I feel that this new School Attendance Bill, which, as I say, we must regard as satisfactory, will not achieve what it is intended to achieve unless something can be done in the matter of seeing that its provisions are enforced. I do not know what can be done in that way; I confess that I feel helpless in the matter.

I do not know that the Minister— any Minister or even the Government —has very much power over the district justices, either as a body or individually. I know that certain district justices not only regard those offences as trivial and rather discourage the Guards from bringing prosecutions, but have on occasions actually put excuses into the mouths of the people who were brought before them and told them that it is no offence to keep children at home to work in the house or in the bog or in the field. If that is going to continue, I have very little hope that there will be any substantial improvement in the attendances at school. When the Principal Act was going through the Oireachtas in 1926, I was a member of the Dáil, and I had a good deal to say to this Bill on its various stages. I was then an enthusiastic supporter of the proposal that the Guards should be the enforcing authorities in rural areas. I am not by any means so enthusiastic now, and if the Minister were to propose legislation here setting up school attendance committees all over the country on the same lines as those set up in the cities, he would have my personal support in any case.

There is just one other matter which I should like to mention in connection with the attitude of the courts. Some time about the date of General O'Duffy's speech there was a conference between himself and some of his higher officers and the members of the teachers' organisation with regard to this question of school attendance. He produced statistics to show the relative proportion of convictions in school attendance cases and in other cases which are summarily disposed of in the District Courts—unlighted bicycles, road trespasses, failure to have dog licences, drunk and disorderly cases, and so on. The convictions in school attendance cases were more than 30 per cent., and in some cases 40 and 50 per cent., below those recorded for the other classes of case which I have mentioned. If there were to be any distinction made, surely it should be the other way about? In the circumstances in which prosecutions under the School Attendance Act are brought, one would expect almost 100 per cent. convictions. In any of the other cases I have mentioned there is usually an element of doubt, or it may be the first occasion on which the offence is committed, but that is not the case in the matter of school attendance prosecutions. There can be no room for doubt there because the absences are officially recorded. There is no question of doubt, and not only that but a prosecution is never brought for the first offence. It is only brought after a child has been repeatedly absent from school without any reasonable excuse and, up to the present at least, only after the parent has been warned that, if the offence is repeated, a prosecution will be brought. Therefore, as I said, there is no reason why, when a prosecution is brought, there should be such disparity in the matter of convictions.

Suppose a man is held up night after night for three or four weeks for riding an unlighted bicycle, and then he gets a solemn, formal warning that if he repeats the offence he will be brought to the court; finally he does repeat the offence, and he is brought to the court; but then, instead of being heavily fined, he is rather sympathised with for the trouble and inconvenience caused him because of the overzealousness of the Guards. We would be surprised if that happened, but it is something analogous to what does happen in prosecutions under the School Attendance Act. As I say, the fact is that failure to send a child to school is looked upon as a trivial offence. While that opinion prevails among the parents, the public, or the Gárda authorities, or on the bench, we cannot hope for a very big improvement. I have been reading through the speeches made in the Dáil when this Bill was going through, and there were many things said for which there was no foundation; but I think the most far-fetched statement was to the effect that, under the school attendance laws, a parent was likely to be hauled before the court and probably heavily fined if his child were absent even for one day. They forgot altogether, of course, that there is no offence committed if a child has a proper and reasonable excuse for being absent.

When I ask for a strict and rigid administration of the law, I am not so unreasonable as to expect that a child should attend school every day, irrespective of circumstances, such as inclement weather, sickness or the distance from school. These are set out in the Act as being reasonable excuses why a child might be legitimately absent from school. If these circumstances are present, there is no offence committed. Hundreds of cases can, however, be quoted where children have been absent from school for weeks without any reasonable excuse, and there was no question of a prosecution, not to mind a fine. Whatever else can be alleged against the administration, no one can say that the Act has been administered harshly or with unfairness to any parent or pupil.

Deputy Dillon and others in the Dáil suggested that the indifferent attendance was confined to city areas. I shall quote from Deputy Dillon's speech:

"Who wants this Bill? Is there this great evil, for if there is, I know nothing of it? Is there some extraordinary outbreak of absence from school in the cities that we in the country know nothing of...?"

That was stated by Deputy Dillon, and, having read it, I thought that it would be useful to quote some figures to show that, in fact, it was not, as the Minister stated in his earlier statement, confined to the cities. In my opinion, it was worse in the country than in the cities.

Recently, in pursuit of its activities in connection with the employment, or perhaps I should say the disemployment, of teachers, the teachers' organisation asked its members throughout the country to supply figures indicating the percentage of attendances during the different quarters of 1941 and 1942. Some rather significant figures were received, and I have culled a few of these from County Monaghan, which Deputy Dillon represents, and a few from County Mayo, with which he might be expected to be familiar. These figures are supplied over the signatures of the principal teachers. I will not give the names of the schools, but, if the Minister or anyone else wants them, I shall supply them.

Taking County Monaghan, school A had a percentage of attendance for the four quarters in 1941 of 71, 79, 82 and 68. For the first two quarters in 1942 the percentage was 71 and 76. School B, for the four quarters in 1941, had a percentage of 73, 78, 82 and 70, and for the first two quarters in 1942, the percentage was 71 and 72. For school C, in the four quarters of 1941, the percentage was 56, 78, 64, and 64; and for the three quarters of 1942, the figures were 64, 66, 55. In school D, for the September quarter of 1942, the percentage was 59. In school E, for the four quarters of 1941, the figures were 69, 77, 60, and 75; and for the three quarters of 1942, the figures were 75, 66 and 60. In school F, for the four quarters of 1941, the percentage of attendance was 63, 69, 72 and 70; and for the two quarters of 1942, the figures were 74 and 70. All these schools are in County Monaghan.

Taking County Mayo, School A, in the four quarters of 1941, had a percentage of attendance of 73, 76, 83, 85. In the three quarters of 1942 the percentage was 73, 76 and 81. In October, 1942, the percentage was 63. In School B, in 1941, the figures were 71, 78, 74 and 80, and for the three quarters of 1942 they were 75, 73 and 70. In School C the 1941 figures were 69, 73, 73 and 72, and for 1942 the percentage for each of the three quarters was 68. In School D the 1941 figures were 69, 76, 72 and 52, and in 1942 the figures were 75, 77 and 71. I can quote similar figures for other areas, but I mention these particularly in view of Deputy Dillon's suggestion that the lower attendance was confined to the cities. These figures that I have quoted are from the rural schools in Deputy Dillon's bailiwick. Apparently he knew nothing of these and he did not make any inquiries or otherwise he would have been better informed.

If the percentage of attendance over a stated period was 60, that would mean that out of every 100 pupils 40 were at home on every day of the quarter. To put it in another way, out of every ten on the rolls, six would be present and four absent. Of course, that might not be the actual attendance on a particular day; it might be higher or lower. You will notice that the percentage of attendance was as low as 52 and 55 over the whole period. Monaghan and Mayo are not the worst counties in this respect. When we consider these figures, the 85 or 86 mentioned for the city looks quite respectable. The real trouble is that there is no popular tradition of school attendance in this country. We have a lot of lip service paid occasionally to education and the importance of education, but those who have a lot to say about education and its importance in that way do not always seem to be anxious to put their ideals into practice.

With regard to the provisions of the Bill, I have few observations to make except with reference to that much-debated section, Section 4. In that connection, probably the Minister will now be prepared to admit that if he accepted certain advice tendered to him while the Bill was in course of preparation it would have had a much smoother passage in the other House. I do not disagree with the section, and I am not particularly worried about the nice points of principle raised in the other House. I am thinking of it from the point of view of administration. I can see all manner of difficulties arising if this is put into operation and administered in the detailed way indicated in this section.

The section deals with children who, for one reason or another, are not attending a national or a recognised school, that is, a public school, a school which receives funds from the State. Such children would come under two heads. First of all, we have the child who is being educated in his own home by a governess or a tutor. I imagine that the number of parents who employ a governess or a tutor to teach their children except possibly before they reach the school age is very small and is growing smaller. Then you have a much larger number of parents who, for one reason or another—and I am afraid snobbery would be one of the reasons—do not send their children to a national school, but to a private school. There is a much larger number of parents who would come into that category.

Unfortunately, the teaching profession are not like doctors or lawyers or dentists, who are protected in their professions, and they are not like architects or auctioneers, who are seeking such protection. Anybody can set himself up as a teacher. Anybody can open what he would call a school in a back parlour, an attic, and even in a cellar, and advertise for pupils and charge what fees he thinks he will be able to obtain. Up to the present, there has been very little check on the activities of people of that kind. With regard to the first class I have mentioned, I think there is very little likelihood that people in that class would neglect the education of their children, and I doubt the wisdom of attempting to bring them within the scope of the school attendance law, although I can see that there is a justification for it. I do not think, however, that our experience during the past 16 years, since the Act was passed, will show that there were very many cases in which the law had to be invoked to induce such people to give proper education to their children, although, as I say, I can quite see that it is necessary to have the power there.

The case of the private school is entirely different. These parents who make up their minds to send their children to a private school are entitled to be protected against people who may be inclined to impose on them, and I feel that no private school should be either allowed to open or to function unless the Minister is satisfied that the people engaged there as teachers have at least certain minimum qualifications. There are other questions of the suitability of the premises in which the so-called school is carried on. I know some of them in which nobody could suggest that instruction is given under proper conditions from the point of view of ventilation, floor space, sanitary conditions, furniture and such things. I think the Minister is entitled to see that proper arrangements are made. He is taking power in the Bill to do that, but in, as I would say, a rather complicated and roundabout fashion.

I would very much prefer that instead of dealing with the individual child, as he does in this section, he dealt with the private school as a unit, and either certified it as a suitable school as a whole, or declared that it was unsuitable, so that any child attending a school declared to be suitable would be all right. Under the section, it may be necessary for the Minister to give a certificate to every individual child attending every one of these private schools. That is the interpretation I take of the section, because in all the sub-sections the reference is to a certificate in respect of the child and not in respect of the school.

I should prefer, and I think it would make things much easier from the point of view of administration, if the certificate were given in respect of the particular private school, and that once the Minister is satisfied that a private school is giving proper education and the teachers have at least the minimum qualifications, the parents of any child attending such school might be satisfied that they were complying with the law. I am sure the Minister has given full thought to this, and I take it that he feels it can be administered, but I think he is letting himself in for unnecessary trouble. It would be very much simpler if the section were drafted in the way I suggest.

There are a few other points of minor importance which could be more adequately dealt with on Committee Stage, as Senator Hayes has suggested. I propose to refer only to one. I should like to see the powers given in Section 17 to school attendance officers in the scheduled areas of questioning a child who the officer thinks should be at school and who is not at school, given to the Gárda Síochána in the rural areas, who are the school attendance officers in those areas, so that if a member of the Gárda finds a child running about, when he thinks that child should be at school, he would have the same power of questioning as is given to school attendance officers in the city areas.

I am very glad indeed to see that the original proposals in the Bill as introduced with regard to employment have been altered very much for the better, although I should like to see the long list of relations somewhat curtailed. It certainly is an improvement on what appeared in the Bill as introduced. I can only express the hope, qualified as it must be by what I have said with regard to administration, that the Bill will bring about a very much needed improvement in the attendance at our schools, and thereby avoid much of the waste of effort which is going on, and which must of necessity go on, day after day in our schools because teachers have to repeat lessons because some of the children in the classes have been absent. I have no doubt that the Minister will do his part in seeing that the Act is properly administered, but I think he will have to call to his aid some of the other Ministers, and especially the Minister for Justice, and see whether he in particular can help him in any way towards getting better results from the law.

Liam O Buachalla:

Ar an gcéad dul síos ba mhaith liom a rádh chomh mór agus tá áthas orm a thabhairt fá deara go bhfuil na Seanadóirí a labhair ar an mBille go dtí seo ar aon intinn maidir le fáilte a chur roimhe.

Deasmumhan Mac Gearailt:

Ceist!

Liam O Buachalla:

Thaithnigh go mór liom an chaint a rinne an Seanadóir O Conaill i dtaobh cuid de na tuairimí aisdeacha a nochtuigheadh i gcoinne prionsapail an Bhille nuair a bhí sé á phléidhe sa Dáil. D'fhreagair sé chomh cruinn sin iad nach gádh dom a thuille a rádh fútha.

Sul a dtéighim ar aghaidh níos fuide, ba mhaith liom a rá chomh sásta agus a bhí mé ag éisteacht leis an Aire agus é ag míniú brigh an Bhille indiu dhúinn. Is truagh liom nach raibh mé i láthair chun an chuid tosaigh dá óráid a chloisint. Sé'n fath is mó a thaithnigh an óráid sin liom gur theasbáin sí aríst eile chómh feileamhnach agus atá an Ghaedhilg le ádhbhar casta dlighe a phléidhe. Tá an Bille léighte agam cúpla uair agus ghlac mé cómhairle le daoine 'na thaoibh, ach caithfe mé admháil nach bhfuaireas léargas ceart air go dtí gur chuala mé míniú an Aire air.

Sílim gur ceacht an-mhaith don tSeanad an óráid sin ar fheabhas agus slacht na Gaedhilge chun chur síos ar Bhillí mar seo, agus tá súil agam nach ndéanfaidh Seanadóirí, cuma cé chomh beag a gcuid Gaedhilge, faillighe ar í a léigheamh agus a scrúdú nuair a gheobhas siad an Tuarasgabháil Oifigeamhail.

Sé cuspóir an Bhille ná feabhas do chur ar fhreastail ar na scoltacha náisiúnta. Sin cuspóir simplidhe. B'fhéidir nach bhfuil sé chómh simplidhe é do chur i bhfeidhm ach is cuspóir simplidhe é. Is dóigh liom fhéin gurb é an rud is mó a theastuigheann uainn—agus sin é adubhairt an tAire, agus chuidigh an Seanadóir O Conaill leis—ná feabhas do chur ar chúrsaí freastail na scoileanna náisiúnta i dtreo is go mbeidh muinntear na tíre in ndon oideachas d'fhagháil. Muna bhfuil an freastal go sásamhail, ní ar na páistí atá an locht ar fad ach ar na tuismightheoirí nach dtuigeann tábhacht an oideachais do na páistí.

Is minic do chuir mé ceist ar na múinteoirí maidir le páistí a bhíonn ag freastal agus páistí a bhíonn as láthair, agus is iomdha uair adubhradh liom nach iad na daoine bochta is mó a fhanann ón scoil ach iad san go dtig leo bheith ar scoil. Ba cheart dúinn aigne an phobail do mhúscailt i dtaobh tábhacht na scoile. Ní hé go ndéanfaimís "outcasts" fén dlí dhíobh ach go mbéadh an pobal sásta nach saoránaigh chearta iad agus nach tuismightheoirí cearta iad muna dtugann siad an deagh-shompla a gclann a chur ar scoil.

Luigheann an Seanadóir O Conaill ar an scéal mar gheall ar na Gárdaí— an deacracht atá ann nuair nach bhfuil dóthain Gárdaí sa tír le coingeallacha an Achta bhí ann do chur i bhfeidhm. Is dóigh liom fhéin go bhfuil roinnt den cheart aige ach tá faitchíos orm nach bhfuil an ceart ar fad aige. Tá cuid mhaith den locht —más féidir locht do thabhairt air— ar na múinteóirí iad féin. Go dtí seo, do réir mar thuig mé an scéal, do bhí sé de dhualgas ar na múinteoirí an chasaoid do dhéanamh má bhí páiste as láthair. Sin mar a thuig na múinteoirí fhéin an scéal. Do bhraith sé ar chuid mhór de na múinteóirí scoile an chasaoid do chur isteach go dtí an oifigeach freastail. Níor thaithnigh le na múinteoirí scoile é sin a dhéanamh. Thuigfeá an fáth nár thaithnigh; bhí aithne acu ar thuismightheoirí na bpáistí. Tá sé éasca go leor againn a rá go mbeidh dualgas ann casaoid do chur isteach, ach tá sé iontuigthe nach bhfuil na múinteóirí ag dul as a mbealach é sin do dhéanamh. Ní féidir le héinne a rá go bhfuil na múinteoirí cionntach fén dlí. Tá an dualgas díreach ar na túismightheoirí an leith-scéal do chur isteach agus clárófar i leabhar na scoile é agus beidh an tuarasgabháil sin ag an oifigeach freastail. Sa mhéid go n-athruigheann an Bille seo an chuid sin den scéal, is mór ar fad an feabhas é.

Mar gheall ar na scoltacha nach scoltacha náisiúnta iad, tá cead ag tuismightheóirí páistí do chur go dtí scoltacha d'aon tsórt chun oideachas do thabhairt dóibh. Pléidheadh an cheist sin annseo, ach tá gné eile ar an scéal agus sílim gur ceart áird do thabhairt air. Tá daoine sa tír seo agus, pé ar bith fáth atá leis, ní bhíonn siad sásta an chlann do chur ar scoil in Eirinn chor ar bith. Caithfidh siad a gclann do chur thar sáile. Tá daoine ag rá go mba cheart go mbéadh cead ag tuismightheóirí a gclann do chur in áit ar bith chun oideachais d'fháil, an fhaid is fhághann siad é. Ní aontuím leis an tuairim sin ar fad. Smaoinighím anois ar Éirinn agus ar an scéal ar leith atá againn. Pé ar bith áit a rachas daoine ar scoil, ba cheart dúinn a chur in áithrid, an oiread is féidir é, go bhfuigheann na daoine óga sin oideachas i nGaedhilge —oideachas do réir mar is toil le Rialtas agus muintir na hEireann.

Tá súil agam nach fada uainn an lá go mbeidh an t-oideachas ins na hollscoileanna ar siúl i nGaedhilge. An fhaid is atá cead ag duine dul amach agus oideachas fháil thar sáile —nó oideachas nea-Ghaedhealach fháil —agus, tar éis sin, dul isteach ins na meán-scoltacha agus na hollscoltacha gan iad bheith ábalta na cúrsaí do leanúint i nGaedhilge, cuirfear cosc leis an dul ar aghaidh atá fíor-riachtannach má tá Éire le seasamh mar náisiún. Níl fhios agam cionnus a socrófar é sin. B'fhéidir go bhféadfamuid fhéin ins an Ollscoil—b'fhéidir go mbeadh dóithin misnigh ag na gColáistí Ollscoile agus Seanad na hOllscoile—a shocrú nach leigfí duine isteach feasta gan scrúdú i labhairt na Gaedhilge. B'fhéidir go ndéanfaí an riail sin ins an Ollscoil gan dlí ón Oireachtas. Tá ceist ann faoi sin, ní hamháin ins na hOllscoileanna agus na meán-scoileanna, ach ins na scoileanna náisiúnta, ins an mbliadhain deireannach a mbíonn páistí ag freastal ann.

Pé ar bith dream a thiubhras an t-oideachas do na páistí, caithfimíd féachaint chuige gur oideachas ceart Gaedhealach é, Gaedhealach ar gach slí. Páistí a théigheann thar sáile, caithid an scrúdú so do dhéanamh nuair thagann siad ar ais. Ní mórán a théigheann thar sáile.

Mícheál Ó h-Aodha:

Fior-bheagán.

Liam O Buachalla:

Tá an prionsabal ann. Isé prionsabal é gur ceart cead do bheith aca oideachas d'fháil in áit ar bith. Mar gheall ar an gcuid sin den Acht a bhaineann le páistí do chur ag obair, níl mé fhéin an-chruinn air. Tá sé ráidhte nach féidir le haon duine, taobh amuigh den mhéid atá luaidhte in alt a 8, páistí faoi 14 bliana do chur ag obair. Níl fhios agam an bhfuil sé seo ró-chruaidh—an féidir teacht timcheall air ins an dlighe. Nuair a smaoinigheann duine ar an gcóras sealbhuidheachta talmhan in Éirinn tugaimíd fá deara gur gabháltais bheaga an gné is tábhachtaí dá mbaineann leis. Sé an prionsabal mór a bhí againn nuair a ghlacamar leis an gcóras san ná gur féidir leis na tuismightheoirí feidhm do bhaint as a gclainn le cuid den obair do dhéanamh. Aithnímíd é sin i gcomhnuidhe.

Micheál Ó h-Aodha:

Bun-rud iseadh é.

Liam O Buachalla:

Beidh fhios ag an Aire mar tá sé sin scrúduighthe aige. Tá comhacht aige, ins an ocáid phráinneach seo, feidhm do bhaint as saothar na bpáistí leis an obair a dhéanamh.

Micheál Ó h-Aodha:

Ní seasta dhó sin in aon chor.

Liam O Buachalla:

Is féidir i gcomhnuidhe a rádh nach bhfuil na páistí ag fagháil aon tuarastail as. Níl fhios agam an le haghaidh an ocáid phráinneach amháin atá sé ceapaithe nó an rud seasta é, páistí do thabhairt ón scoil ins an earrach agus ins an bhfómhar le rudaí speisialta do dhéanamh ar an talamh agus ar an bportach. Más prionsabal é sin ag lucht ceannais an oideachais b'fhéidir gur mhaith an rud leanamhaint de. Annsan bhéadh na páistí as lathair cuir i gcás, ar feadh seachtaine san earrach, seachtaine i mBealtaine agus seachtaine in Deire Fómhair.

Tomás Ó Deirg:

Níl ceaptha agam leanamhaint de sin acht an fhaid is atá an phráinn ann.

Liam O Buachalla:

Is féidir triail a bhaint as an fhaid atá breis oibre le déanamh. Saothrófar an talamh agus na portaigh go ceann i bhfad i ndiaidh an chogaidh, chó tréan agus a déantar san fá lathair, agus mara mbeimíd ag eirghe as an dian-tsaothrú san caithfimíd socrú a dhéanamh le feidhm do bhaint as saothar na bpáistí ar ocáideanna speisialta sa bhliadhain. B'fhéidir gur féidir leis an Aire riail mar sin a dhéanamh. Maran féidir caithfidh sé comhacht sealadach fhagháil.

Is maith linn go raibh an misneach ag an Aire rud do dhéanamh i dtaobh clann lucht siubhail sa tír seo. Leis an fhírinne a rá, is deacair cur síos a dhéanamh ar an gceist seo tá an oiread san deachracht ann agus do luadadh cuid aca ins an Dáil. Cruthóchaidh an aimsear an féidir an dlí do chur i bhféidhm ar an mbealach atá socruighthe annseo dhúinn. Sílim féin go gcaithfimíd deire do chur leis an lucht siubhail ar fad, leis an saoirse atá acu dul amach ar an mbealach mór. Tá cuid mhaith sa tír seo ar an intinn chéanna liomsa.

Mar adubhairt mé, Bille é seo chun freastal ar na scoltacha d'fheabhsú. Ba cheart don phobal tábhacht an oideachais do thuigsint i gceart. Ní ceist é sin do na Ghárdaí ná don Rialtas ach ceist don phobal. Is ceist do Chonnradh na Gaedhilge í; is ceist do na múinteóirí í agus is ceist do na Ceárd-Chumainn í chó maith. B'féidir go bhféadfaí níos mó do dhéanamh ag na múinteóirí ná tá déanta go dtí seo le freastal níos fearr do chur in áithrid. D'féadfadh scéim bheith ann le daoine tuigseannacha fháil agus do chur ar choiste, le daoine a mhealladh chun níos mó suime do chur in oideachas— níos mó suime ná a cuirtear go dtí seo. Thuigfidís annsin nach raibh an t-oideachas mar rún éigeantach a bhí curtha ar an bpobal ag an Stát. Is minic do thug mé comhairle faoi sin nuair labhair mé ag comhdháil Mhuintír na Tíre. An príomh-rud adubhairt mé i gcomhnuí ná go dtabharfadís aire fa leith don oideachais agus do na scoltacha náisiúnta.

Níl tada eile le rá agam ach amháin gur mór an sásamh ar fad dúinn go bhfuilimídne agus muintír na Dála ar aon intinn faoi éifeacht agus tairbhe an Bhille. Tuigeann an Seanadóir Ó h-Aodha agus an Seanadóir O Conaill go bhfuil cuid mhór sa mBille seo a chuirfidh feabhas ar chursaí oideachais.

Mr. Fitzgerald:

I believe it was Napoleon who aspired to the position in which he could at any given moment take out his watch and know that the children of one age were learning a certain subject. That seems to be what the Minister wants. But Senator O'Connell is not quite satisfied with that. He wants to know that they are all learning the one subject in the same way, from the same type of national teacher, and in the same building.

Mr. O'Connell:

I did not say that.

Mr. Fitzgerald:

I took it from what the Senator said that he assumed that any person who did not send children to a national school was moved by nothing else than snobbery.

Mr. O'Connell:

I said that was one of the reasons.

Mr. Fitzgerald:

I gathered that that was the predominant reason, and that it might be assumed to be general. I do not agree with that.

Mr. O'Connell:

There is a variety of national schools.

Mr. M. Hayes:

A great variety.

Mr. Fitzgerald:

I am afraid, as I am not of a temperament to like that stereotyped sort of humanity, that I cannot join in the universal welcome to the Bill that Senator O Buachalla expects. I am not going into that now. There is one thing I want to refer to on the Second Reading. It relates largely to Section 4, and it raises in my mind a question about the Constitution as it is now, since the very considerable amendment that was made in 1937. The first clause of Article 42 acknowledges as a right the responsibility of the Family for the education of children. It reads:

"The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children."

We affirm in our basic law that the duty and right of educating children is in the family yet, somehow, we may have figures rolled out about 80 per cent. and 70 per cent. and of children who avoid attendance at schools. It seems to be assumed automatically that that proves that the demand in the section with regard to education by the State is necessarily not being carried out. Clause 2 of paragraph 3 of the same Article reads:

"The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social."

Inasmuch as Clause 1 affirms that the responsibility for education rests in the family, I do not see how it necessarily follows that because a certain number of children are not attending certain State-financed institutions they were necessarily lacking in the minimum education, moral, intellectual and social education, which is all the State asserts it has a right to demand. Clause 5 recognises that in certain exceptional circumstances the State, and not the family, is responsible. It reads:

"In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State, as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard to the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child."

From that it does not seem to me that if we are going to assume that out of 100 per cent. some 20 per cent. are not availing themselves of the education mentioned in Clauses 4 and 5, which apply to exceptional cases where parents fail in their duty, then the assumption is that parents for moral or physical reasons are unable to do so, and, consequently, if only 80 per cent. are attending national schools, that means that 20 per cent. are failing to get any education. I want to refer to Clause 2 in the Article of the Constitution. It reads:

"Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes or in private schools or in schools recognised or established by the State."

I do not quite see the need for that clause because I think it is implicit in Clause 1 of the Constitution. Clause 3 reads:-

"The State shall not oblige parents in violation of the conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State."

To a certain extent that clause is unnecessary inasmuch as the State has recognised that education is the right and the duty of parents. I do not see how it is necessary then to say that they shall not in violation of the parents' conscience and their lawful preference insist on sending them to a particular type of school designated by the State. We are now asked to pass a law which is going to make practically every preference of a parent unlawful. I maintain that if you take the clauses together you will see that parents are only bound, in the eyes of the State, to see that children have a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social. That is the only claim made by the State. The others are negative, denying the State's right, or affirming the willingness of the State to provide primary education. Special arrangements must be made in exceptional cases of physical or moral deformity in parents.

Now what are we told to-day? On the ground that a child's parents have on one occasion been found guilty in court of not having sent the child to school, that child may be committed— and that is the case stated—to a reformatory. I think if an unfortunate parent had his child sent to a reformatory because the parent had on one occasion been found guilty in this way, he could challenge the matter in the High Court. What has the State the right to see to? That the child has received a certain minimum moral, intellectual and social education. If that condition is fulfilled, what right has the Minister or anybody else to send a child to what is, in effect, a prison, merely because the parents have not elected, possibly as Senator O'Connell says on grounds of snobbery, to send their child to a national school? I interpret Article 42 of the Constitution as affirming that the education of their child is primarily the parents' private business, and that the State only comes in, rightly comes in, in relation to the common good because the State, in order to fulfil its function in providing for the common good, will require a certain standard of education for everybody. Once that is existing in the individual child, the State has no further right to interfere.

Paragraph (a) of sub-section (2), Section 4, states:

"The Minister may, before giving such a certificate, that is to say, a certificate that the child has received a suitable education, require such child to be submitted by his parents to such educational test at such time and place as the Minister shall direct, and the Minister may refuse to give such certificate if such parent fails or refuses so to submit such child."

The Constitution asks nothing more of parents than that their children shall receive a certain minimum moral, intellectual and social education, and if the Minister refuses to give that certificate for the reason that the child was not submitted to a test at a time and place arbitrarily selected by the Minister, and if certain penal consequences flow from that refusal with regard to the child, the parents will have every right to prove in court that that child had received a minimum moral, intellectual, and social education and that the penal results of the Minister's arbitrary action should have no effect.

Another paragraph of the section states:

"Where a child has received education at school (other than a national school, a suitable school or a recognised school) and the Minister refuses to give a certificate under this section in respect of such child, the Minister may so refuse to give such certificate on the ground that such school is not appropriate for that particular child, or that such school is not appropriate for children to whom the Principal Act applies."

How is the Minister going to judge whether or not a school is appropriate? As I interpret the Constitution, the only thing that the State can require is that the child receives a certain minimum education. If the child has that minimum education, the question of the appropriateness of the school seems to me to be outside the purview of the State authority. A further paragraph states:

"Where an application is made to the Minister for a certificate under this section in respect of a child, the Minister may make such inquiries and investigations as he shall think proper for the purpose of determining whether to give or to refuse such certificate, and if the parent of such child or the manager or conductor of the school (if any) at which such child is receiving such education fails or refuses to give to the Minister any information in his possession or procurement required by the Minister for the purpose aforesaid, such failure or refusal shall be a ground for refusing to give such certificate."

I quite agree that if it be a mere matter of giving such a certificate, the Minister has a perfect right under these circumstances to refuse to give a certificate but if anything further flows from it, as, for instance, if the Minister should undertake to order that the child be sent to a school specified by him, then I think the Minister is grossly going beyond the terms of the Constitution and is certainly grossly infringing on the rights of the parent.

As this is the Second Stage, I do not propose to go into the matter more fully but I should like to say that it does seem to me implicit in the Bill, in the Minister's speech and in other speeches made in this House that it is the State's business to take the children of parents in this country by the neck and to insist that they shall attend certain schools.

I do know of the case of a man who is quite a distinguished scholar in this country. He was taught by his father up to the age of 13 and only when he was at that fairly advanced age, at his own request, was he sent to school. Under his father he had become extraordinarily competent in the grammar and the literature of Latin and Greek. Implicit in that statement is the fact that he was able to read and write those two languages, but when he went to school he could not be retained there because, although he was at the age of 13 able to read Latin and Greek and to translate from English into Latin and Greek, his father had omitted to teach him how to write. Consequently when he was asked to write his name he was unable to do so. I wonder would that boy satisfy the Minister's test as to whether he had or had not received a minimum intellectual education or would he be failed while the product of a backward national school would be passed?

Against the assumption that the State had this right I must stand out. I will say that when the State provides schools out of public money and provides the form of teaching at big expense, it has the right to determine what the programme will be but I notice—I think it was in Senator O Buachalla's speech—the assumption that, somehow or other, the State has the right to insist that everybody in this country shall speak Irish whereas, under the Constitution, the State has no such right. It can, of course, apply certain penal effects. It can say: "If you attend one of our financed institutions you will have to learn it", or it can say: "You will not be able to get a job unless you know Irish." But the State has no right to insist on parents having their children taught Irish because the children can have, not only a minimum but a very fair maximum education, intellectual, moral and social, without their excelling in one particular subject.

I dislike the general trend of the Bill because—it may be the crank in me—I feel it represents a further arrogation to the State of control over the human person, a tendency which has to be resisted in this country as much as in other countries. There is, for instance, the provision that if a parent does not send his child to a certain school irrespective of the child's educational standard, the child can be sent to a reformatory. I should like to ask the Minister to explain to me how the provisions made in Section 4 of the Bill fit into the framework provided by the Constitution without tending to burst that framework.

Mr. Baxter:

Like Senator O'Connell, I was a member of the other House when the original Bill was going through. In those days, we committed ourselves to the principle of compulsory school attendance. The State has grown up somewhat since then. It has won allegiance that was not being accorded to it in those early days. While not wholly agreeing with my colleague, Senator Fitzgerald, I feel that there is an effort on the part of certain members of the House to exaggerate the importance of the effort of the State in regard to the attendance of children at our national schools. I feel too that, in two sections of the Bill, to which I shall refer, there is a rather narrow and somewhat intolerant approach to the problem with which the State is attempting to deal. Whether the attendance is good or bad and whether the original Act was effective or not for the purpose for which it was passed, are matters on which I need not now dwell.

Senator Fitzgerald addressed himself at some length to Section 4. I do not propose to argue whether this section will make the Bill unconstitutional or not. Some parents who are fortunate enough to possess a good share of the world's goods may, some time, contest the validity of this section in the High Court. I ask the Minister to give some further consideration to the section in so far as it will affect children living on the Border. I am nearer the Border than the Minister is and I know more about both sides of the Border and the mentality of the people there than he does. Like him, I think it should never have existed, but I am afraid that the Minister's method will not take any stones off it. The restrictions which have been imposed and are being imposed by the authorities on both sides are tending to build the Border higher in the minds of the people on either side. One might say that these restrictions have created a condition of corruption and dishonesty which tends to permeate the lives of the people on both sides in an ever-widening circle and to a degree one must deplore. For the future, apparently, children from our side will not be regarded as attending school unless they attend a school on this side of the Border. Parents of nationalist outlook, living on the very edge of the Border, cannot send their children to a school on the other side, where the majority of the children are also nationalist. Children on the Border will not be at liberty to walk 300 or 400 yards to a primary school on the other side and may have to trudge through rain, mud and slush for, perhaps, three miles to a school on this side of the Border. These physical difficulties may not have to be faced but, whether they have or not, I think that this is an absurd and intolerant approach to the whole problem.

Knowing a good deal about the conditions, I think that it is absolutely wrong to impose such a restriction. Why are we doing it? I do not know. It is true, so far as my own county is concerned, that a certain number of parents would rather send their children to school across the Border than have them educated here. That may be a narrow and intolerant attitude, but, perhaps, these parents have got the feeling that the way of life for these children is likely to lie beyond the Border, and that conditions here would not be suitable, in their view. I do not think that I would answer them by putting such a section as this in the Bill. A narrow and intolerant answer such as that will drive the people farther apart. I do not know the number likely to be affected by this provision. I do not think that there is one in my own county. If there are any in Monaghan, Donegal or Louth, they must be very few. The fewer there are, the less justification there is for the imposition of this restriction. If a few children are sent across the Border for their education, I would let them go, whether they be children of Nationalist parents or children of parents who are regarded as non-Nationalist and who prefer to have their children educated on the other side of the Border.

I do not think that we can, in justice or from the moral point of view, assume the right on behalf of this State to declare that these children are not being educated. Having regard to the numbers involved, it is absurd for the State to take up such an attitude. From the Border point of view, this is the sort of thing of which we are continually accused down there—that, instead of desiring to reduce the number of obstacles to the co-operation of the people on both sides, we are adding to them. My conviction is that we shall not make the atmosphere between ourselves and the people across the Border better except by intercourse. If we regulate the lives of our children so that they cannot have intercourse with the children on the other side of the Border, the position is hopeless. I do not accept that proposition and I shall oppose it.

Section 8 deals with restrictions on the employment of children. Senator O'Connell gave this section his blessing. Senator Hayes introduced certain notes of interrogation. I want to put a couple of questions to the Minister regarding the section. As it stands, the section will prevent the employment of any child under 14 years of age to do anything. I cannot employ children on a Saturday, when I have the potato digger to dig my potatoes. Senator O Buachalla made reference to the fact that, under the present law, we have a break in the school term in the spring and harvest. That is not being taken away. It is interesting to see how that works. I do not know what experience the Minister has of children going to national schools, but I have some experience. In the spring, children are useful for getting potatoes into the ground. The Minister knows that as well as I do. What happens at the national school at this period? I know what happens at one national school. There is a discussion between the teacher and the children as to what week will be most suitable for this work. The question is generally determined by a vote of the pupils—a democratic and interesting way to determine such a question.

But what happens? If I am a bit ahead with my spring work, my children know that I will be putting my potatoes in on some two days the next week. My children, and other children like them, whose parents are fairly well advanced with their work, will vote one way. The children of parents who are more backward with their work, parents perhaps with the least labour at their disposal, and confronted with the greatest difficulty in the employment of labour, and who are the farthest behind, will be in the minority. What generally happens in the school is that the children of parents who are more advanced in their work and who are in the more industrious districts are in the majority and get their potato week at a time which is suitable to their parents. But the other children have to take it at the same time. The eight days, or whatever they get, are wasted and these other people do not get their job done at all. You are faced with the same situation in the harvest of the year. I do not see any solution for that and I am not suggesting that there is one.

What I want to come to is this, that the section as it stands in the Bill will prevent me from employing children under 14 to put down my potatoes before the plough in the spring of the year. Similarly, it will prevent me from employing such children in the harvest. I know what it was to try to get the potatoes out last harvest and it was not easy to get them in last spring. Children of my own, who are not anything like 14 years, were engaged at it in both periods. You are either going to operate this section or you are not. Personally I think it is much better not to have in an Act of the Oireachtas any clause that you cannot operate fully. If there is anything which will bring law into contempt, it is having a law which everybody knows is being ignored. It may be that the drafters of this had only in contemplation, when they made reference to employment on premises, employment somewhere in the city or on some sort of premises in towns or some place like that. I do not know whether they were contemplating employment in the fields. I certainly assert that it would be absurd for any farmer to find himself in the position that he cannot employ a strong, vigorous, hefty, young fellow of 13½ years or 13 years and 9 months in the hayfield. There is a holiday period of approximately six weeks for the children in the summer months. I can assure you that children of that age were very useful during the few good hours that were given us once perhaps in the three weeks when we were trying to save the hay at the end of this season.

If we are to be in the position that we cannot employ any children of that age when they are not at school, and when obviously they will not be going to school for weeks, to me it does not make sense. I certainly am not in favour of a position where it is possible to take children under 14 years into employment when they ought to be at school. I am in favour of children being sent to school. I am for the liberty of the parents to send their children to a school where the parents, according to their own lights and judgment and from their own point of view, think the children will get an education suitable to them. I think that when you take that right away from intelligent parents anywhere there are bound to be reactions to it and we reach a stage when people will begin to say that we are growing so top-heavy and arrogant at the centre that something must be done with the head.

With regard to this other point with which I am mainly concerned, I think the Minister cannot adopt that attitude. He knows what the conditions in the country are; at least, I assume that he did in the past. I live a short distance from the town, and boys came out to me to the hay-field during their holidays last year. I think they were very well employed. I think it was healthy and good for them, and also beneficial to them. I think that is something which ought to be encouraged, rather than something against which you should stand. If I am to have Gárdaí counting so-and-so in one of my fields, my potatoes may not be picked up, but may be left to the frost or crows, or my potatoes may not be put into the ground in spring. If, in the present conditions with which farmers are confronted, having to do every day and into the night more than they are able to do, with the present shortage of labour, we are to be put up against this situation, we are not facing the real problem. I am convinced that children who are physically fit ought if possible to be employed in some vigorous, healthy, outdoor activity, when they are not at school. If I had my way, I would not have children idling. I do not know what the Minister's view on the matter is, but I would not have my own children idle when they are not in school. I think they are better children for it, and will grow into better men and women. I think we can approach the problem from that angle, and say that our whole purpose in educating children is to educate them first to the necessity for industry.

There is a great deal of urge in that aspect of our scheme of education to-day. The purpose of training their minds should be to make them fit for work. If we take the attitude that when they are not training their minds at school they are not to be usefully employed, I think it is a completely wrong approach. I should like to hear the Minister's view about that. The Minister may say that it is not the intention to prevent boys going out into the fields. Take the children of a cottier living on the edge of his employer's farm. Three or four or five of them may get something for doing jobs, but now they cannot be taken on. We ought to be clear where we stand. While Senator O'Connell may see virtue in this section as it stands, I see the contrary and I want to hear something from the Minister which will disabuse my mind.

Professor Tierney:

When the School Attendance Act of 1926 was going through the Dáil I am glad to be able to recall that I took up a fair amount of the time of the House in making the same sort of protest about child labour in country districts as Senator Baxter made to-day. I thought at the time that the powers taken in the Act were far too extensive and were a grave interference with the liberty of parents, in country districts especially, and, furthermore, that the type of action contemplated by compelling children to go to school when their parents might need them for agricultural work at home was not good for the children themselves. I was rather struck at the time by the fact that the principal champion of the most radical compulsion in the Dáil was the Leader of the Labour Party and it strikes me as peculiar still, with regard to this whole subject of compulsory school attendance, that the Labour Party does not take up a stronger line in regard to it than it does. This type of legislation was originally intended for one class in the community, people who mainly belong to the poorer class, people who, by reason of their own defective education or some kink in their own mentality, failed to give their children the full opportunities of the education that the State provided, 99 per cent. of these people were poorer people. The operation of all legislation like this is undoubtedly to press far harder on the poorer classes of the community than it does on the well-to-do.

There are provisions in the Bill which enable well-to-do people to have a fair amount of freedom as to where they will send their children. Well-to-do people are never liable, even under this amending Bill, as far as it may go, to be harassed by school attendance officers and school attendance committees, but the children of the poor, who have the same rights, after all, and the same liberties as the well-to-do, form the main subjects of all this kind of legislation and their parents have to be submitted to a great deal of vexation and a great deal of bother on this matter. It has always seemed astonishing to me that the champions of the poorer classes of the community have not stood up more strongly against excessive State compulsion in all this question of education.

The original Act, as I said, was intended to deal with cases of people who, through some fault, had failed to give their children a proper education. That Act already, to my mind, went quite as far as legislation of this kind should go, and in regard especially to that question of the employment of children on agricultural labour in the country, the wording of the Act certainly went too far, and it has only been prevented from doing harm largely by reason of the fact that, in the long run, you cannot subject the farming community to excessive compulsion.

Mr. Baxter:

Eggs and butter are examples.

Professor Tierney:

There are a great many loopholes. The farmers have ways of their own of dealing with all these compulsory Acts and the result of that is that the farmers are still able to avail themselves to a certain extent of their children's labour. Personally, speaking as one individual, I believe the farmers have a perfect right to avail themselves at need of their children's labour and that the State has no right at all to come in and prevent parents in the country from legitimately using their children's labour for the work of their family.

This Bill, it seems to me, extends the purview of this compulsory school attendance in a couple of directions and the extension, as far as I can see, is very undesirable in both directions. I have not heard from the Minister any real explanation of what the purpose of Section 4 of the Bill, in particular, is. As I say, the original legislation was intended to deal with cases of people who, by some delinquency, or some dereliction on their part, failed to get their children a good elementary education. Section 4 and other parts of the Bill seem to be directed mainly against the type of people that Senator O'Connell described as snobs, against a certain number of people who may like to send their children outside the bounds of this State altogether to give them an education, people, for instance, who may like to send their children to school in England. I do not approve of people doing that. I think it is very foolish on their part, apart altogether from the question of whether it is snobbish or not. But such people do exist and are we going to make it a penal offence for people to do that? Is it to be made an offence to be what Senator O'Connell and other Senators may choose to call snobs? That is what this all boils down to. There are only a few cases, probably, of people who like to do that sort of thing, but what right has the State or the community to coerce people like that? Suppose they are people who know very well what they want to do with their children by way of education, who have a far clearer idea of what they mean by educating their children than the Minister for Education has in some cases, what right has the State to go in and say: "You must not send your children to such and such a school and you must get a certificate from some Minister for Education before you are entitled to send your children to that school or this school"?

Why should the State take on powers like that? The only reason I can think of is that it wants to penalise certain people. The direction in which the whole system of ideas is moving was fairly well indicated by Senator Buckley. It wants to penalise people who do not like to see their children subjected to compulsory Irish. That is what the whole thing boils down to, as far as I can see. Although I have no objection at all to compulsory Irish, and I think that it is foolish to go to great rounds in trying to struggle against it in that way, at the same time I cannot at all see why it should be right for the State to pass or try to operate penal legislation of this kind. I think it will turn out to be a grave injustice, and I hope that, as Senator Fitzgerald said, it will turn out to be contrary to the Constitution under which we live, because it is going altogether beyond the scope of the original legislation which was part of that utilitarian movement that has filled the whole 19th century and nearly the first half of the 20th century, and which, in the long run, has not been such a vast blessing to humanity as people suppose it to have been. One would imagine by all the talk about getting 90 per cent. compulsory attendance at school, that the products of the primary schools were all highly civilised, highly artistic and highly advanced beings. You do not get any particular value by all this elaborate State machinery of compulsion, and it is very questionable indeed whether the average Irishman is any better educated now, after all our national schools and compulsory education, than the average Irishman was in the 17th century, when there were no national schools and no compulsion at all.

On that point, I would like to ask Senator Buckley—except that he is not here—to devote his attention for a moment to one little point. He said that we should see that the schools operating under all these Acts should give an education which would be entirely Gaelic and should impart Gaedhealachas to all the children, including, I suppose, those children of snobs who are compulsorily made to attend. I would like to ask Senator Buckley where in the records of Gaeldom will he find the institution of compulsory school attendance and what is Gaelic about it and, if you are going to impart Gaelicism by compulsion like that, are you not running the risk that in introducing the principle of compulsion into such a matter, you are cutting at the whole root of what is really meant by Gaelicism?

That brings me on to another point in Senator Buckley's speech which, I must confess, really rather frightened me. He suggested to the Minister— who has some provisions, which I think already go quite far enough, for dealing with the children of vagrants in this Bill—that power should be taken to prohibit vagrancy altogether. I could not help thinking of a little parody in my own mind when I was listening to him about the subject of the unfortunate tinkers —"Cad a dhéanfaimíd feasta gan caintín, tá deire na dtincéir ar lár?" Senator Buckley, in his reforming zeal, wants to wipe out all vagrancy and to tie down these unfortunate people— whether they have anything to be tied down to or not—in some particular place.

Mr. Baxter:

Some man's field, I suppose.

Professor Tierney:

It may be that many of us might not like to be tinkers. There are moments in my existence when I wish I was a tinker. I must say, in fine weather in summer time, I am not sure at all that the tinkers have not a better life than most of us. But, although we may not like the life of a tinker, are we really justified in thinking that we are effecting improvement in the world by taking these drastic powers to cause all the tinkers' children to conform to our utilitarian standards, cause them all to go through the grinding machine that was set up for us here by Dr. Whately just about 100 years ago and the spirit of which, to a very large extent, still informs our whole educational system? Are we doing any real good in the light of history or in the eye of Providence by subjecting these unfortunate children to that machine-made State grinding institution? I am not convinced that we are and, personally, if Senator Buckley has his way and if he does get legislation brought in which will put a final end to the time of the tinker in Ireland I will be one that will shed a tear. I do not know whether other people feel the same about it, but I think the tinkers are in a way a test of this whole machinery, just as the snobs are at the other end. You are proposing to abolish the snob on the one hand and the tinker on the other. You will not be able to abolish either. You are trying, as far as I can see, to reduce us all to the level of a Fianna Fáil Senator. When you have done that, and when history comes to contemplate your handiwork, I wonder whether history will have such applause for you as Senator Buckley imagines.

This is a very serious question. It touches the liberty of the citizen and of the community and the right, above all, of the parent to say what shall be done with his children. As to all these arrangements for taking away children from their parents and committing them to reformatory schools and all the rest of it, I hold that the State has not the right to interfere, except in the most exceptional circumstances, with the control by the parent over his children and over his children's education, or even with the right of the parent to say: "I will not subject my child to your machine; I do not believe in the value of your machine; I will not allow my child to be contaminated, and I will teach my child what I like." I do not see that the State has the right, except in a very mild degree and in exceptional circumstances, to interfere with the parent's right. Liberty is, of course, a question of degree. Nobody wants to see complete anarchy, so that a certain amount of interference is necessary in a large community where a great many people are not conscious, or capable, of living up to their duty as parents. But when they are conscious of their duty, when parents are well instructed and anxious to carry out their duty in their own way, then I say that the State has no right at all to come in and interfere with them. When Senator Fitzgerald was talking about the exceptional case of the brilliant student who was taught Latin and Greek by his father, I saw Senators smiling, but liberty has always meant the exceptional case. If you have not liberty for the exceptional people, for the people who will not conform to your dead-level pattern and fit into your machine, then you have not got liberty at all. When you talk about the State being free, and of the citizen being free, in this country after so many years of slavery, you are simply using a lot of meaningless words which you by your own action would deprive of the meaning that so many centuries of struggle have sought to give them.

There is a grave danger in all this kind of legislation, by this introduction of uniformity, that we are taking a step in the direction that Europe has already taken with such disastrous consequences. Indeed, a good part of this Bill, if you ever get a totalitarian Government established in this country, will give the totalitarian Minister for Education legal powers to do all sorts of things, to cut short the rights of parents, schools, and so on, that we might be very sorry to see him having. I do not like to vote against the Bill, or to make a great case about it, because we are really only extending legislation already there. I feel that the whole tendency is to set up the machine first, and then to get that machine geared up more and more until it tries to bring every single person in the community within its working. Ultimately, of course, what happens is that that sort of machine breaks down, and that its effect is negatived by the very attempt to do that. I am almost tempted to say, not that I am afraid, but that I hope this machinery of compulsion will not do the work which the Minister seems to expect it to do.

Mr. O'Dwyer:

Like some of the previous speakers I do not like the proposal to have more compulsion as regards the attendance of young children at school, though that possibly may be necessary in centres where you have large populations, in places where you so often find people unwilling to do their duty. In my view I do not think compulsion should be applied in the case of children under the age of nine or ten years. To have it in their case would not, I think, be of any advantage to education. Compulsion should certainly not be applied in the case of children of the age of five or six years. It might perhaps be no harm to have it in the case of children of that age living in towns. I suppose they would be better off attending school than in running around the streets. Compulsion, however, should not be applied to children of that age in the country where conditions are so different from those that obtain in the towns. I think, from the point of view of the physical well-being of country children, that at that early age they should be allowed to run about free in the open air. They should not be burdened with the worry of attending school and learning lessons. It would be desirable, of course, that children under nine and ten years of age would have religious and other instruction imparted to them. In the country, children at the age of nine and ten years should not be required to attend school on more than two or three days a week. If that were done it would leave the teachers free to give more attention to the more advanced pupils. Up to the age of ten years children do not learn a lot at school. They really do not begin to use their intellects until later, and for that reason I think the Minister should respond to the appeal to extend the school-leaving age beyond 14. He may not find it possible to do that, but there is one thing I would ask him to do, and it is to waive the compulsory clause so far as it applies to country children under the age of nine or ten years.

Mr. Hawkins:

I desire to support the appeal to the Minister made by the last speaker to raise the school-leaving age. I understand that the Department has already made a start with a view to meeting the demand for continuing children's education beyond the age of 14 years. We all know that too many children leave school on the day that they reach that age, the age at which they are in a position to derive any real benefit from education. Unfortunately, too many people take their children from school at that age for the sake of the few shillings they may be able to earn. Senator Tierney objected to the right of the State or of the Minister to have any say in what school a child should attend, or to the issue of certificates. Senator O'Connell pointed out that it was not the school but the child who got the certificate. Senator Tierney objected to that.

I think it is the duty of the State and of the Minister to keep a careful watch over the type of people who are allowed to set up schools here. If this Bill does not give the Minister power to do that, there is nothing to prevent any type of people, of any character, from starting a school in a locality and getting people—sometimes people who may imagine that they are snobs, as has been mentioned here to-night, or who like to do things which other people cannot afford to do—to send their children to that school. I think it is right that the Minister should have those powers. There was also mention here to-night about the clause which makes it an offence to employ children under 14 years of age. I think Senator O'Connell and the Labour people agree with that clause, but I do not think it is at all necessary in the Bill. There is, if you like, a contradiction; for the last two years, since the emergency, the Department and the Minister have allowed the schools to close for a period so that the children may give a hand on the farms, and sometimes a child may "give a hand" to his neighbours. Of course that can be got over by saying that the child was not in the employment of the particular neighbour. We all know how useful a lad of 12½ or 13 years can be in doing some light work. I do not want to be taken as advocating child labour——

Mr. Baxter:

None of us does.

Mr. Hawkins:

——but at the same time I think there is no necessity for that clause, and that it may not be desirable to have it in the Act. It may mean that people will be rearing children until they are 14 years of age without encouraging them to work in any way, and I am sorry to say that we have too much of that in the country at the present time. Another aspect of the matter which should be considered is that young people should be encouraged to go into the trades rather than to the universities for the purposes of entering the professions. That is one of the defects in our educational system at the moment. I am sure that members of the Labour Party can substantiate my statement that the number of apprentices going into the various trades during the last few years—there may be some excuse during the emergency—has rapidly declined, and I am afraid we will be very short of craftsmen in this country if that decline continues. That would be a very undesirable thing.

Senator O'Connell read out a statement made by General Eoin O'Duffy when he was Commissioner of the Police, and in that statement he told us that the Gárdaí did not enforce the School Attendance Act because they wanted to maintain their popularity. That was one feature, I think, of the General himself at that time—he would like to be popular. But if we are to have a Gárda force that is going to do only the popular things, then I think the whole justification for their existence ceases entirely. To make or to enforce any law or any regulation which affects a large number of people is not a very popular thing. It is not a popular thing for the Government to make the Orders, so it must be a more unpopular thing for the persons who have to enforce them. General O'Duffy also said that they could not enforce the Act because they were reduced in numbers—that where there had been four Guards some time previously there were only three at the time when he was making the statement, in 1931. I am sure everybody in this State was delighted when such a position was brought about that the Gárda force could be reduced rather than increased. I am sure that, if the Government—no matter what Government was in power at the time—felt that the duties of the Guards demanded an increase in their numbers, there would have been an increase. I do not think that was the reason for the non-enforcement of the Act. There were other reasons; no matter what law you make with regard to school attendance, you cannot enforce it in such a way as to secure 100 per cent. attendance. No matter how the Guards endeavour to enforce the Act, there will always be children who are not sufficiently healthy to go to school in inclement weather. They may not be really sick; they may not be in such a condition that a doctor would certify them as unfit to attend, but in the opinion of their parents, who know their little failings, it would be unjust to those children to send them out to school in bad weather.

I think that Senator O'Connell or any other Senator who expects that, by increasing the number of Guards and getting them to go out more determinedly to enforce the regulations, we would get better results, is mistaken. That would not be the best way to do it. I think it would be far better if we could educate the people on the importance of sending their children to school regularly. This Bill applies only to a very small section of the people, and, as Senator Tierney pointed out, they are admittedly the poor people, because the others, realising the importance of education for their children, give due attention to the matter. The inattention to this important matter on the part of the poorer people arises, in a number of cases, because of their circumstances. If we could even make a start now and educate the young girls in the schools —the future mothers of the country— on the importance of sending children to school regularly, I think we would be taking the first and most useful step in achieving that very desirable end— 100 per cent. school attendance.

Mrs. Concannon:

This Bill is intended to amend the Act of 1926. It does not establish any new principle. It is very important—that is why I intervene for a moment at this point— when tightening up compulsory attendance, to ask ourselves why we are doing so, and what responsibilities we take when we thus tighten up the obligation on parents to send their children to school. The first question that presents itself is: what kind of education are they to get—what are they to do during those hours when they are compulsorily attending school? This is a very big question, and I think it will have to be faced in a better and clearer way. We all agree that there are many defects in our present system of education. To my mind, it is entirely too bookish. I was very much impressed by what was said by Senator Baxter and Senator Hawkins on the importance of training for work. That is what most of us have to do in this world, and that is how we earn heaven—by working. Work is the thing that has to be taught, habits of work and the importance of work, and so I think that a great deal of manual instruction should be included.

The girls should be trained, as part of their education, for the duties that their future lives will impose on most of them as homemakers. The importance of the education of women cannot be over-estimated. Women are the educators of the future race. So far as an educated woman is concerned— and I use the word "woman" in the broadest sense—it is not only book knowledge that she needs; she requires a proper instruction in a woman's ordinary home duties. If we are going to compel parents to send their children to school and to keep them there until they are 14 years, we should see that the education given them there is such as will fit them for their future duties. That is very important.

If we are to compel parents to send their children to school, we should see that the schools are not such as will be detrimental to the health of the children. It is most important that children should be taught the principles of sanitary living. One could cite the most appalling cases of what children of tender age are subjected to. That might have been all right if parents were free to send their children or not to send them to school, but when we are introducing the element of compulsion, then it is our duty to see that the children and their health will not suffer through this compulsion.

The part of the Bill that interests me particularly is that concerning the children of vagrants. I am grateful to the Minister for the great care he has taken in connection with this matter. It was brought to the notice of some of us that large numbers of children of vagrants were getting no education whatever. Certain priests were concerned because the religious and moral training of those children seemed to be neglected. Apart from that danger, the increase in the number of vagrants was fast becoming a social problem and had to be faced. I do not think that any of us could dispose of that problem in the lighthearted way suggested by Senator O Buachalla—that we should stop vagrancy. If we were to attempt that, is it suggested that we should put the vagrants into reservations? We would have to give them some means of livelihood. We would have to provide them with homes, and that would be a very big undertaking.

I agree with those who state that we should hesitate to pass the clause of the Bill that prevents the employment of children under 14 years. I think work on the land at certain times is a most necessary part of country children's education. When this Bill is being considered in Committee, the whole thinking power of the House should be directed to this clause. Perhaps we could suggest some modification that would not interfere with the main principles of the Bill, which seek to secure certain rights for children and a proper training for their future, without putting an undue emphasis on book education.

Mr. Cummins:

The last speaker impressed me very much when she referred to the education of girls. It is a well-known fact that this branch has been neglected in the primary schools and in schools established for special purposes. It has been neglected in this way, that it has not been availed of by the individuals for whom it was intended. I would be in favour of some form of education up to 16 years of age. As a matter of fact, the English Parliament has introduced, or is about to introduce, legislation providing for training up to 16 years of age. I think every child, male or female, should be followed up to 18 years in order to see that they are fitted for the battle of life, whether in the agricultural or in the industrial sphere. In certain countries a record is kept of all young people up to 21 years of age.

I realise the difficulties that confront any Minister who promotes a Bill of this kind, in which compulsion forms an essential part. The difficulties are undoubtedly great. The plea will be put forward that parental and other rights are being interfered with. I have many years' experience of the Compulsory Attendance Act, and I will say that while the Guards did their best in the matter of securing attendance—and did it tactfully in most instances—the penalties—and that word is a hateful one—were not at all compatible with the offence, the main aspect of which was that it deprived certain children of the education that was being provided for them by the State. It is a delicate thing to refer to the Minister for Justice in his absence, but I think when he goes through the country he might have a word or two with those gentlemen who sit on the magisterial bench, and who appear to be over-lenient towards some people who are chronic offenders in this matter of school attendance. In many cases nobody was brought to book for the offence, and I might say that, with the exception of the bigger cities, the money and time spent in enforcing the School Attendance Act was more or less wasted.

I regard the practice of making the teachers clerical officers, as it were for the State, as unjust and unfair. There is too much of that type of thing being practised. I think it should be left to the authorities enforcing the Act to look after this business. Usually on a Friday evening the teacher has to spend an hour or two furnishing long lists of delinquents, perhaps 30, 40 or 50 out of every 100. In that connection I might mention that no steps were taken to see that those delinquents were brought to book. Perhaps one might be selected out of the weekly or fortnightly list comprising 30 or 40 delinquents. If it is proposed to continue this practice, then I think it would be wrong to do so.

There is much good in the Bill, and I wish it every good luck. I believe that if it is competently operated it will be beneficial to the country. I hope the Minister will follow it up with legislation which will induce the young ladies that Senator Mrs. Concannon referred to to avail of the very excellent facilities that are being provided by the State in our technical schools. Splendid buildings have been erected in large centres of population, and it is rather tragic to find that where there is accommodation for 30 pupils the class usually consists of only six or eight. It must be assumed that the young ladies are otherwise occupied in picture houses or in the dance halls. I think we shall have to follow up these girls; we shall have to see that something is done about it. I happen to be interested in technical schools, and I am very depressed when I find a teacher exercising himself laboriously with a class of six or eight pupils where there is accommodation for 20 or 30. If it is at all possible I should like the Minister to extend the provisions of the Bill so as to cover technical schools.

I wish him every luck with this measure. I think our people are impressed with the usefulness of education. Sound education is fundamental to every administration. Every effort should be made to induce our people to become, so to speak, education-minded. I must say that in some places there is very little encouragement being offered. In that connection one might take the condition of certain schools as an example. I say that it is a cruel thing to compel young children to enter some of our schools and to remain during their early years in such deplorable conditions as prevail in some schools in the country. It is very essential that something should be done in reference to our school buildings. There is a motion on the Order Paper dealing with that matter and we shall have an opportunity of expressing our opinions when it comes under consideration. I suggest that until something is done in that regard, it would not be a proper thing to exercise compulsion in regard to the attendance at school of the pupils in certain districts.

[Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.]

Mr. Foran:

In dealing with this matter, I want to disclaim any great educational qualifications. I know a little about the national education system of a long number of years ago. I spent about five years at a national school and I had the pleasure of seeing my schoolmaster in the gallery here. In those days there were no free books and the system generally was a system of cramming. I am told that the modern system is a vast improvement on anything that existed in my time. Generally speaking, I am not at all enamoured of our national school system. Mention was made of snobs. Even in the national schools, there is a considerable amount of snobbery amongst pupils which is encouraged by our system in regard to free books. I am told by parents that the ordeal to which they have to submit themselves in order to get the books which they cannot buy for their children is rather demoralising and degrading. It is a matter of which the Minister should take serious note. A certain allocation is made to enable the children of poor parents to get these books supplied to them free of charge. The amount availed of is not at all near the total, and some steps ought to be taken to make it easier for the parents of these children to obtain these books without the taint of pauperism which exists to-day. To that extent, snobbery is encouraged by the very system in our national schools.

There has been much talk about freedom and coercion in connection with our educational system. Working-class people, who, in the main, supply the pupils for national schools, have been so used to coercion that a little more or less will not affect them. Great numbers of unemployed people are compelled to starve and to go semi-hungry, and the children of these people are the children you intend to coerce into going to insanitary, unheated schools. No consideration is given to whether these children have hungry stomachs or not, and, so far as I know, no serious attempt is being made to apply the School Meals Act to help these children to avail themselves of the tuition the schoolmasters can give them. It is very hard to teach children and to get them to take an interest in their lessons if they are not fairly well fed. I wonder what the Minister would think of an amendment designed to develop and enlarge this aspect of our educational system? I should like to hear him on that point, as well as on the subject of the free school books system which is not being availed of for the reasons I have given.

Listening to Senator Baxter and to his plea on behalf of the farmers, one had only to close one's eyes to go back 100 years to the time when the mill owner, the mine owner and the factory owner availed themselves of child labour. That is what Senator Baxter would reintroduce in this age. Some Senator talked of compulsion and coercion. We know the history of child labour and its disastrous effects, and I sincerely hope that our Minister for Education is not going to be impressed by the claim of Senator Baxter that we should put back the clock and employ these unfortunate children in a country which has 100,000 unemployed people. We all know that young people are far more adept and useful in the exploitation of machines than old people. If we allow young people to be employed we are going substantially to increase the great numbers that are at present unemployed. We know that our capitalists are no more generous than other capitalists and that child labour is a very fertile and profitable ground for exploitation and for the creation of wealth for these capitalists. I need not dwell any longer on that aspect of the matter but, when the Minister is replying, I should like to know what his reactions would be to an amendment, in the way of an extension of the provision of free books, with a proper development of the compulsory provision of free meals for children attending national schools.

Dr. Rowlette:

I want to draw the attention of the House to one point on this stage of a Bill which, in the main, seems to have received the approbation of the House. It is a point of importance and will be raised in another form in the near future by Senator O'Connell. It seems to me that we are taking great responsibility in compelling the attendance of children at schools that are dangerous to their health. I doubt very much if it is right for the Legislature to insist on their attendance at schools where they are likely to contract disease owing to the unsanitary condition of these buildings. I do not want to steal Senator O'Connell's thunder, but anybody who takes the trouble to read the annual reports of medical officers of health, whose duty it is to inspect the schools, will see that almost in every case they comment on the unsanitary and unsatisfactory condition of school buildings. From the description they give it is quite clear that it is dangerous to the health of many children, whom we are compelling to attend, to go to these schools. That is a matter that the Oireachtas and the Department of Education in the first instance should take notice of without going into the question that Senator O'Connell means to raise by his motion. As anybody who reads these reports must realise, it is a great evil.

Mr. Derrig:

The School Meals Act does not properly arise on this Bill and I am not responsible for its administration. That is the duty of the Minister for Local Government and, in any case, I doubt if it is possible in the Seanad to move an amendment which would impose a burden on the Exchequer. I think the issue of school meals is being dealt with elsewhere. However, as the Senator has mentioned that, it might, perhaps, be in order if I say that I am in agreement generally with the principle that, if possible, children should be allowed to have meals at home with their parents. Those who have gone into the question, not alone here but elsewhere, will, I think, agree that by adopting the other system of communal meals, communal feeding, or whatever title may best describe it, they are letting themselves in for something that I fear involves a serious interference with family life, as we would like to have it in this country. While I do not want to be taken as an alarmist, it seems to raise that question in a very acute fashion. As regards school books, the position is that the manager and the principal teacher determine whether the circumstances of children are such as would seem to entitle them to free school books. It was not intended that all children should be provided with these books. Most people in this country, and probably in the Oireachtas, would not agree that parents have not their responsibility in the matter and, while there would be a general desire to help poor parents, where the question arises in providing children with proper education, nevertheless there again there would be the feeling that what is given for nothing is not appreciated as against what is got as a result of effort. Moreover, there seems to be a question of the responsibility and duty of parents to provide certain essentials for the children, which should not be easily waived. If any Senator has particular cases in mind I should be very glad to inquire into them. No representations have been made to me about this matter.

It was suggested that we were interfering unduly with the liberty of parents. That is a point of view which had been already put up rather strongly in the other House. I do not agree with it. As Senator Mrs. Concannon has pointed out, the principle of compulsory school attendance has been accepted and this is merely an amplification of that principle. Of course, we should all like to have liberty, but the trouble is that personal liberty may tend to become licence in some cases. If some individuals were given too much liberty, that liberty might interfere with the liberties, and even the lawful rights, of others. The problem is to effect concord between the two points of view. As regards the original School Attendance Act, there is no doubt whatever but that it was a great educational reform, and those who were associated with its passage have reason to congratulate themselves. Up to that time, children in this country attended school very irregularly. They attended for a few days a week now and again and eventually reached only the third or fourth standard. That was quite common.

The position now is, and has been for many years past since the Act came into effective operation, that while unfortunately the numbers attending primary schools throughout the country have been going down, for reasons I need not go into now, the outstanding success of the Act is indicated by the fact that the upper classes have been filled up—sixth, seventh and eighth standards—in a way that was not contemplated before the Act was passed. That has been the testimony of prominent teachers. In addition, the country must have benefited enormously. Those who are old enough to remember the City of Dublin 30 years ago, and who knew the circumstances in the schools then, if they were asked to make comparisons and explain to the public what the conditions then were and what they are now, when you have a 90 per cent. attendance in some schools, when a great many schools are fairly comfortable for the children and when, above all, the parents have an entirely different outlook, I venture to say, as to the way in which they should look after their children—the way they should dress them and prepare them for school—will agree, I think, that there is none of that dereliction of duty on the part of parents or, at least, not at all to the same extent as existed in the bad old days. I believe, therefore, that this School Attendance Act has been the means of bringing about radical improvement and substantial progress in educational affairs generally.

There have been certain loopholes, and this measure is an endeavour to close up these loopholes. In the first place, you have the question of vagrants. A high ecclesiastic of the Catholic Church asked me many years ago—I would be rather ashamed to mention the number of years—what we were doing about this problem. Undoubtedly, there is power to deal with it to some extent under the existing Act and also under the Children Act of 1908 which we have since amended. That Act enabled the police to deal with wandering children who did not seem to have proper guidance or to be under proper control, but for some reason or another the main problem remains to be dealt with. I caused inquiries to be made and I found that you have many hundreds of these children, according to police reports. Apparently the main difficulty in dealing with them has been the fact that they flit from place to place rather quickly. We must have regard to the interests of all children in the country. Even if there were only 100 children in respect of whom it could be said that they were getting practically no education, that they were growing up illiterate, without the fundamentals which every child should have in religious and moral training, it would be a serious matter, but we have many hundreds and since I got these figures the number may have increased. We have, even in the cities, a certain number of these nomads who are in occupation, lawfully or unlawfully, of one particular tenement for a certain brief time and then move off again to another one. It has been very difficult for the school attendance authorities to keep track of these people.

I think it should be borne in mind that that is the type of parent, who is either neglectful or who is incapable, for some reason or other, of looking after his children's education, the law we are proposing to amend has in mind. We have not in mind the ordinary parent who is trying to fulfil his duty. Even if such a parent should find himself brought into court, the whole circumstances surrounding the case will, of course, be examined. As has been said here by more than one speaker, the court is apt to take a lenient, perhaps sometimes a too lenient, view of these cases. I think that is due to one factor, the feeling that if people are given advice and are prepared to take it, it is much better that they should be dealt with in that way than that some formal punishment should be imposed upon them. The Constitution demands that our children should have a certain minimum education. It is the duty of the State, as guardian of the common good, to require that children shall receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.

The question arises: who is to determine whether children are getting that minimum education or not? I think the appropriate person is the Minister for Education who is charged with control of educational administration for the time being, and who is responsible to the Oireachtas and to the people for the conduct of that administration. Under the Principal Act, the position was that the courts had the final say in this matter. One reasonable excuse for failure to comply with the section was that the child was receiving a suitable elementary education in some manner other than by attending a national or other suitable school.

Who is to determine what is suitable education? As the question of the vagrants had to be decided in fulfilment of a promise and as there was a number of other matters calling for attention if the Act was to be amended, this question naturally arose because it had been the subject of court proceedings. The district justice in a particular case decided that as the children were attending a school, not being a national school and not certified as suitable by the Minister, the parents were guilty of an offence. This decision was reversed in the Circuit Court where the judge held that they were receiving a suitable education, and made a long statement in which he referred to the matter of Irish. He held that, although the children were not receiving instruction in Irish, there was no power in the Act to require them to be taught Irish. That case, of course, did not arise from any act of mine. It arose from the enforcement of the Act by the Gárdaí and only came to me later on. I took no action about it at the time, but as we were bringing in this amending legislation I felt that if the position could be improved and this matter determined, it would be to the advantage of the administration of the Act. Accordingly, my proposal is that the Minister for Education should be the person to determine whether the education that is being given is suitable or not. If, in particular cases, parents are educating their children in their own homes or sending them to private schools, which they are quite entitled to do, they are safeguarded by the Constitution. "The State shall not oblige parents, in violation of their conscience and lawful preference, to send their children to schools established by the State or to any particular type of school designated by the State."

Senator Fitzgerald's speech was really by way of reply to Senator O'Connell. If he wishes to suggest— as, I think, he has suggested—that there is some implication in this measure, or in something I have said, that I want to force parents to send their children to particular schools, that is not so. My duty is to see that the Constitutional provision, that children shall receive a minimum of education, is fulfilled. That is within the province of the Minister for Education, but it is not within the province of the Minister for Education —I agree with Senator Fitzgerald, in reply to Senator O'Connell, that it would be quite wrong—to suggest that children attending private schools should go to State or other schools.

Mr. O'Connell:

I never made that suggestion. I suggested that, if children went to a private school, the parents should be protected by seeing that the private school was a suitable school.

Mr. Derrig:

I have no wish to misconstrue the remarks of Senator O'Connell. I should be very sorry to do so. The provision of the Constitution which I have read out makes the matter quite clear. This question of private schools is regarded as serious by everybody, including myself. I think that the rights of parents will have to be safeguarded, and I have tried to safeguard them in this Bill by making it necessary for the Minister, before he refuses a certificate to a parent that his child, if attending a school, is receiving suitable education, to give the parent or the school manager or conductor, as the case may be, the ground of his proposed refusal and thereby give those concerned a reasonable opportunity to comply with his requirements. Where there is goodwill on the part of the Minister and willingness on the part of the parent to accept and abide by the law, there should be no difficulty. In my opinion, inspectors of the Department of Education should, in this matter, be the advisers of the Minister in cases of doubt. He may not agree with them or he may consider that he has not been supplied with sufficient evidence. If the parent is interested, he can easily give the Minister an account of the type of education his child is receiving. If the Minister considers it necessary, he may ask the parent to have the child subjected to a test. I do not think that the Minister would do that unless he felt that there was serious reason for it. He will not intrude into the privacy of people's homes or intervene in their domestic affairs unless he feels that there is a strong case for so doing. I think it is quite reasonable that he should, if he decides that the matter requires investigation, ask that the child be subjected to a test. The test would be conducted by accredited inspectors of the Department of Education. If they were satisfied that, in all the circumstances, the education given was suitable and conformed with the minimum requirements under the Constitution, I do not think that the Minister would interfere. It may be said that he has power to interfere. Ministers can interfere in matters in which they should not interfere. If the Minister is inclined so to interfere in this matter, his actions will come up for criticism in due course.

I do not think that in this matter— quite apart from the points raised in connection with it and the attention which it has been rightly given—it is likely that, in any time we can foresee, the Minister for Education will carry these powers to the extent of penalising or punishing certain parents who have reasons for having their children educated in their own way. He will have to interfere in the case of the other type of parents who are not looking to their children's education if he is to carry out his duty to see that they receive the minimum of education required. The total number of children affected—those receiving education at home or with friends and those in private schools, inside and outside the State—is very limited. A certain number of children are attending public elementary schools in the northern area and an equal number of children, I suppose, are coming in here. This position has not given rise to any serious difficulty during the 16 years the Act has been in operation. On one or two occasions, cases have come before the courts and, in one case, a small fine was imposed. Generally, however, no difficulty has been experienced. The only alteration in the position under this Bill is that, should a parent sending his child to a school on the other side of the Border be challenged by the enforcing authorities, he will have to show that the education the child is receiving is suitable. I cannot, of course, examine the schools in that area. They are outside my jurisdiction. No such case has arisen up to the present, although it could have been argued under the existing law that these parents were committing an offence. The fears of Senator Baxter are unfounded.

As the Senator has coupled with his statement a remark about tolerance and understanding of this problem, may I say that, so long as I have been Minister, I have done whatever I could to ease that situation and to meet the wishes of the people of more than one denomination in this matter of educational facilities. I think that that has been recognised, and I am not quite clear how the question of tolerance arises at all. So far as I am concerned, it does not arise. The present Bill, if it becomes law, will, in my opinion, make no fundamental alteration in the situation. You will, probably, still have children going across the Border to the schools to which they were accustomed to go and which are most convenient to them and, on the other hand, you will have children coming in here. If the Minister takes certain action and is challenged upon it, the court will have to determine, in the long run, whether or not he was justified in so doing. I think that the Minister for Education is not likely to interfere in that matter unless there are very compelling reasons indeed.

I think that Senator Hawkins made a useful point when he said that opportunity should be taken to enlist the aid of the public in the enforcement of legislation of this kind. I fear that our people, owing to our traditions, do not understand perhaps as well as those in other countries the importance to them and to the future of our country of seeing that our children get the best foundation possible. When we realise that the great majority of them get no education beyond what they receive in the primary schools, it is essential, in these times particularly, that they should get the best foundation possible there and that their parents should give them every opportunity to equip themselves adequately.

The enforcement of the law equally, as the Senator pointed out, is necessary. There is no use having laws, or holding up ideals for ourselves, or laying down certain principles in Acts of the Oireachtas, if those principles are not carried into operation. As has been pointed out, we ought to consider whether the principles are right ones and consider very carefully if we are right in putting them into the laws of our country. But, when they are there, they ought to be enforced. I think it should be the duty of our schools to instruct the children in that very important matter in their civic duty, to tell them that the laws that are now being made are the laws of their own country, made by their own Parliament, in which their own representatives meet. If that point of view were brought before the young people, in the course of time I am sure we would not have those troublesome discussions as to whether or not the Government is interfering unduly with the liberties of the subject. The people themselves would understand the position. They would show the necessary discipline and respect for good order and for authority which seems to be often sadly lacking.

The figures given by Senator O'Connell indicate to my mind that a rather serious position exists in certain rural areas with regard to school attendance. I know that there is an emergency and I know also that we have given the schools additional holidays to enable the children to do work on the land. I entirely agree with those who say that light work of that nature, seasonal employment, does not do the children any great harm. Probably it does them good, even in the narrow educational sense, apart from training their characters and making them realise that they will probably have to work with their hands later on. But, at the same time, education is a most important matter.

When I brought in the Bill which allowed the extra ten days, I think it was, to be given in the spring and the harvest, I remember the opposition I received from Mr. Thomas Johnson. I must say I was greatly impressed with what he said. Whoever may be the person to whom the duty is given of making a case for the employment of children, it certainly is not the duty of the Minister for Education to make it. It is the duty of the Minister for Education to see that the children receive a proper education. I was certainly impressed with what the Senator said on that occasion and, no doubt, he received support from other sections of the House, and I decided that I would not introduce that measure again. An emergency came on and I thoroughly agree that there is a great strain on the farming community at present. Time presses with them very often, and the climate is not always favourable, so we have to make allowances. But, at the same time, it is rather a pity that the school attendance in a county like Monaghan or a county like Mayo should be so seriously affected as it seems to be. One has the impression that children are being kept away from school now rather in the feeling that the work they are doing on the land is more important perhaps than the work which is being done in the school. There is no comparison. If a choice has to be made, I think the Seanad will agree that it is on the side of the school we ought to come down. We ought to ensure that the children will get the fundamentals anyway that are provided in the primary schools before they are asked to assist in agricultural work. As has been pointed out, there are children over 14 and I do not see why these cannot be used. They are free. The other children have presumably to do a certain amount of home work.

The total number of days' attendance asked for in the year is only 200. Nevertheless, I occasionally have requests for extra days which would bring the figure below 200. When Senators look at that figure of 200 they will realise that not a great deal is being asked for and that it is really questionable whether the 200 is sufficient if the work is to be done satisfactorily in our schools. I do not think that we can make any exceptions therefore for golf caddies or any other class.

My position is that in the other House I advocated an amendment which would give the Minister power to regulate employment for children between 12 and 14 and prevent it completely, if possible, for children below 12. As regards industrial employment, of course, that is prohibited already under other laws. As regards employment in shops, that is also prevented, except in the case of relatives of the shopkeepers who are only allowed to be employed part-time. Therefore, these two classes, at any rate, are regulated already. The other classes of non-industrial employment are not regulated, and I indicated that it would have been a very serious and difficult matter, and would certainly take a great deal of time, for the Minister for Education to take the necessary evidence to enable him to schedule the occupations in which employment ought to be prevented for children under 14, on the ground that it interferes either with their attendance at school or with the advantages they receive from such attendances. I was prepared to go into the position, however, though I recognised that it might be said that, in effect, I was only putting the matter on the long finger. But a strong appeal was made by Deputies, including leaders of Parties on all sides of the House, to stop the employment of children under 14. That, in my personal view, is a desirable ideal, and one which will be reached, I hope, after a very short time. Making all allowance for the points which have been made about the position of agriculture and so on, we have to move ahead.

When we see that even a body like the International Labour Office had a convention carried, in which representatives of China and Peru, I suppose, participated, and could all agree, in the year 1937, I think it was, that up to 13 years of age, at any rate, there should be no employment for children, except light work of a seasonal nature, presumably in which they would be helping their parents on the land, I think it is hardly worth while stopping at 13 and we may as well go on to 14, if there is anything in the argument that those under 14 who are employed as caddies and otherwise can be replaced, as I think they can in many instances, by people who are over 14 and who have left school.

I am sure that we shall have these matters again on the Committee Stage, but I would like to say, with regard to that particular matter, that I think possibly the Bill, as it now stands, is better than it was originally. The principle of not having children in employment under 14 years of age should, I think, be taken as the basis. No doubt the Seanad will consider whether there are exemptions which can be made from that. The only exemption at present is the case of children working for their parents or relatives which, in any case, it would have been very difficult to cover under the provisions that were originally in the Bill. I do not think there is any other point. Senator Cummins' interest in feminine education arouses my sympathy and I only wish the girls got more practical encouragement in the way of preparing themselves for the matrimonial sphere.

Mr. M. Hayes:

And that we had fewer bachelors.

Mr. Derrig:

Until our marriage rate improves considerably and the young men of this country—if they can be called young men—make up their minds to marry at a somewhat earlier age than 40, to get away from their mammas' apron strings a little sooner, I am afraid it is labour in vain to ask the young girls of this country to perfect themselves for a state to which they are not likely to be called until they are old spinsters.

Question put and agreed to.

Leas-Chathaoirleach:

When is it proposed to take the next stage?

Mr. Derrig:

This day fortnight, I think. If we are going to have amendments, I do not think we would be able to deal with them satisfactorily before that.

Mr. M. Hayes:

Does the Minister want the Bill before Christmas?

Mr. Derrig:

I do not think so.

Mr. M. Hayes:

I think the idea was that the Seanad would meet next week and would not meet on the 16th, for various reasons, that is, from the point of view of members from the country.

Mr. Derrig:

I could leave it over until after Christmas. I think in any case we would have to leave over the Report Stage.

Agreed to take Committee Stage at the first sitting of the Seanad after Christmas.