Deputy Holohan has added to this debate precisely what was required. He represents the farming community, who are the class chiefly concerned with this amendment. The other Deputies who have spoken did not, I think, represent them to the same extent, at any rate. Deputy Holohan speaks as a farmer, and he understands their circumstances. He has emphasised, I think very properly—and I should like to re-echo what he has said—that the farmers are not likely to take undue advantage of this concession. Had we been in a position in the Education Office to believe that the farmers had gone all out during the past ten years to take the fullest possible advantage of the concession which was given them over the period, no doubt we would still have had to introduce an amending measure of this kind, but we would have felt that there was real need to have a serious inquiry into the matter. But as I showed on the Second Reading, the farmers have not taken universal advantage not undue advantage of the concession that has been granted. I assume that during the five years for which it is now proposed to permit the concession to continue there will be a still further decrease in the number of children who will take advantage of this concession. I prefer on the whole, if there is a tendency to leave the children at school, that we should adopt persuasive methods, and ask the farmers to give an assurance, such as we have got from Deputy Holohan, that they will send their children to school, and keep them at home only in cases of real necessity. If that is the attitude of the farming community in general, I think that there is not a serious argument against this concession. I have reason to believe, from the figures that I gave on the Second Reading, that that is their attitude, and I prefer to take advantage of any opportunities that may offer to emphasise to the farming community what the real meaning of this concession is: that it is a concession without which it is felt that hardship may result and that it is a concession through which we mean to give the farmers a certain advantage in cases of necessity. If that is made clear to the farming community, and if it is emphasised to them that it is their paramount duty to keep their children at school regularly, I think that a great many of the arguments that have been advanced here against extending the concession for a further period of five years fall to the ground.
I regret that Deputy Thrift was not here for the Second Reading of the Bill when we discussed this question. It is quite true to say that originally, when the concession was given, it was in the nature of an agreement between the farmers and the Government. The Labour Party even, I think, agreed in the end that some such concession was necessary at the time. It might be argued that it was really a transitional arrangement, but even though that argument may be made, I think the fact that it was recognised as being a transitional arrangement does not necessarily mean that we need here and now, with the information at our disposal, drop the thing altogether. We have had sufficient experience of the working of it to show that it has worked reasonably well. I have been advised by my staff that, from the inquiries they have made in the rural areas, it is desirable that the concession should be continued. They are fairly well satisfied with the way it has worked. But, in addition, it is a fact that in other countries you have the same concession. I find in a statement that I have here before me, taken from a volume published by the Labour Office at Geneva, that a somewhat similar concession is granted in Belgium, Finland, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and France; and furthermore, in connection with the International Convention governing this matter, which was referred to at the time when the concession was originally given, it is specifically laid down in Article 2:
"For the purposes of work of vocational instruction the periods and the hours of school attendance may be so arranged as to permit the employment of children on light agricultural work, and in particular on light work connected with the harvest: provided that such employment shall not reduce the total annual period of school attendance to less than eight months."
I think it is clear that the concession comes within this International Convention. I have a good deal of sympathy, of course, with the points that have been made by Deputy Thrift, that it is not advisable to have breaks, if they can possibly be avoided, in the attendance at school, and that there is a danger that there may be some disorganisation of classes. Well, we feel strongly that there is a real case of economic necessity in this matter. Deputy Dillon has rung the changes again on the preposterous argument that this concession must be granted because farmers cannot afford to employ labour. Deputy Dillon knows very well that there are thousands upon thousands of small farmers, who are the people chiefly concerned, who do not employ labour, and have never employed labour, and that there are thousands of migratory labourers—he knows it better than anybody else in this House—who leave East Mayo Constituency and the western seaboard, generally, and go across to England and Scotland, and that, in their absence, the work on their little holdings has to be carried on by their wives and families. Does the Deputy pretend that that is not a consideration that we should have in view in connection with this matter? If it were only that alone: the fact that while these people are away working during the spring and harvest in England and Scotland the work has to be carried on by their families, is quite sufficient to justify the concession apart from any other argument. It is obviously a matter of real necessity that their families should be given some facility to enable them to give a good excuse for the children remaining from school—that they are working on the land.
I do not think that there were any other points raised on the amendment. Deputy Norton thinks that the reasons that have been given in favour of the concession are flimsy. I do not agree with Deputy Norton, and, if he consults the teachers, inspectors or the members of the rural community generally, I think he will realise that there are very sound reasons indeed for it and that the parents of those children have very good reasons indeed for keeping their children at home from school: precisely the same reasons, and better reasons, I think, than certain classes for whom the Deputy would like to speak in another connection when he would probably be looking for exemption. These people are entitled, if any class is entitled, to exemption in this matter. I do not think that the period of two years that has been suggested could really be accepted by me. I think that five years is not too long a period. The two years would be altogether too short. You might as well not amend the Act at all nor continue the concession as to continue it merely for a period of a few years. Therefore, I am not prepared to accept the amendment.
