I move: That the Bill be now read a Second Time.
This is a Bill to amend sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 4 of the School Attendance Act, 1926. Deputies will probably remember that these sub-sections were introduced in order that the doing of light agricultural work on their parents' land by children over the age of 12 years during two periods of the year—from 17th March to 15th May in the Spring, and from 1st August to 15th October in the harvest—should be accepted as a reasonable excuse for failure to attend school. These sub-sections lapsed on 1st January, 1936, and it was necessary to come to a decision as to whether they should be re-enacted. On the whole, I think there are very good reasons for re-enacting them. In the first place, the reasons which the Dáil had in mind, when they inserted these provisions in the 1926 Bill, still hold. There is no doubt but that farmers, and particularly small farmers, require the aid of their children at certain periods of the year— particularly the Spring period and the harvesting period—and possibly it may be argued, I think with reason, that there is a greater necessity for them to have the aid of their children at the present time than even at the period when the Act was passed into law. The present policy in regard to agriculture means that there will be more work to be done and more demand upon their children's time. The second point which the House had in mind at the time when the sub-sections were put into the Bill was that light agricultural labour had a definitely educative advantage. It is a form of vocational education, if you will, and so long as it is clearly understood that it shall be of a light nature and not injurious to the children, I think that that is a reasonable principle.
We have had a good deal of experience now of the working of these two sections, and, on the whole, I feel that there are sound reasons for re-enactment. They have worked out satisfactorily. The percentage of violations of their provisions is relatively small. On the other hand, it cannot be said that farmers have taken advantage of the sub-sections to keep their children at home from school unless they were really needed. For example, during the last two years I find that, out of a school population of 97,000, roughly, which might have been affected by these sub-sections, only from 34,000 to 36,000 children took advantage of these clauses, and that 34,000 to 36,000 includes all children who remained at home from school during the two periods in question, even though they did not remain for the full period; that is, even though they only remained at home for part of the period and not for the whole of the ten days' period in both instances.
I think, therefore, that, on balance, the Government are justified in thinking that this Bill should be proceeded with and that these particular sub-sections of the 1926 School Attendance Act should be re-enacted for a further period, and we have fixed a period of five years. Therefore, the Bill, if passed into law, will lapse on 1st January, 1941. I do not think that any other question arises, Sir, and if there are any points that Deputies wish to question me about, I shall be very glad to give them any information I have in regard to the matter.