This is a small Bill. The object of it is to renew two sub-sections in the 1926 School Attendance Act—sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 4. The object of these two sub-sections was to give a certain concession to the farming community in respect of the attendance of their children at school during the spring and harvest periods. The effect of this concession was that for not more than ten days in the period beginning on the 17th March and ending on the 15th May, and secondly, the period beginning on the 1st August and ending on the 15th October, as regards the absence of children from school it would be regarded as a legitimate excuse if the children were working at light agricultural work on their parents' land and for their parents. The concession in question has been in operation since 1926. On the 1st January of the present year it ceased to have effect, so that the question arose as to whether we should re-enact this particular concession or not. Having examined the question, I have come to the conclusion that it should remain for a further period of years. I have no doubt but that many people will claim that there is no need for this concession, and that any loophole which is offered to parents to enable them to keep their children from school, no matter how they themselves may feel about it, and no matter how reasonable they might regard the circumstances which entitled them to do so, would cause considerable feeling among persons interested in education. They will claim that such a concession, making as it does a certain break in school attendance at two periods of the year, and causing perhaps a certain amount of disorganisation, no matter how small, is a thing that ought to be avoided; the chief argument against it being that it is necessary that children should be kept at school regularly, and that unless there are overwhelming reasons for it, it is a very bad principle to give an exemption of this kind.
That is one side of the case. The other side is that in 1926, when the original Act was being passed through the Oireachtas, the matter received very full consideration. I think it would be describing the position fairly by saying that on that occasion an agreement was reached between the representatives of the farmers who claimed that such an exemption should be given and the Minister in charge of the Bill at the time. It may be said that this is a transitional provision and that it should come to an end. While, no doubt, it was claimed at the time that the provision would be transitional, and that it was specially necessary in view of the fact that a School Attendance Act, somewhat drastic in character, of which the country had no previous experience, was being put into operation, I do not think that that can be offered as a reason why we should not continue the concession if we think there are sound reasons for it. The economic necessity which obliges small farmers, in particular, at certain periods of the year to keep their children from school still exists, and, perhaps, in view of the policy of increased tillage that is now being pursued, there is more need than ever for small farmers to have the assistance of their children. To assume that they can get that assistance during week-ends or vacation periods would not be correct, because the necessities of farming often mean that help must be got very hurriedly. There is no proof whatever that the moment when the farmer needs this particular help for two or three days, or perhaps longer, either in connection with the spring or harvest work, is going to fall at a week-end or a holiday period.
In addition to the economic necessity which I believe exists, there is also a sound educational principle, which is widely recognised, in the matter of giving children outdoor experience of this kind. For example, in connection with our vocational schools, Senators are aware of the policy that is being pursued in extending them throughout the country. Those who have knowledge of rural conditions will agree that it would be very advisable indeed if the children attending those schools could have some actual experience of gardening, of rural work and of agricultural processes. In many countries it is agreed that this type of light agricultural work may be recognised as a type of practical vocational instruction. The Department of Education here recognises it as such. An exemption for children who are working on their parents' land doing light agricultural work at certain periods of the year is recognised in a number of European countries. For example, there is a similar exemption in Belgium, Finland, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and France.
Having regard to our experience here, we feel that on balance there is a case for continuing the concession. The only other point is that farmers may take undue advantage of this concession. I do not think that they will do so, because the statistics which I have seen indicate that only about 35 per cent. of the children who might have taken advantage of this concession have done so: that is to say, 34,000 or 35,000 children out of, approximately, a total of 97,000. That figure of 35 per cent. includes all the children absent from school for any period. It does not necessarily mean those only who were absent for the two periods of ten days each, but includes all those absent for any period, even for a single day. I should also explain that this concession only applies to children over 12 years of age. With regard to children under 12 years of age, there will be no exemption for them.
I should like to point out also that, in accordance with representations and strong pressure that has been brought forward in the lower House, I have already altered the Bill slightly to the extent of reducing the period of five years, which it was intended it should run, to a period of four years. I think that, if we were to reduce it any further, it is doubtful whether it would be worth while re-enacting the sub-sections at all.