Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 27 Nov 1936

Vol. 64 No. 8

Private Deputies' Business. - Rhynana Air Base—Workers' Wages.

Debate resumed on the following motion:—
That the Dáil disapproves of the low rate of wages now paid to workers employed by the Commissioners of Public Works in connection with the construction of a transatlantic air base at Rhynana, New-market-on-Fergus, County Clare.— (Deputies Hogan and Keyes).

I should like to have some understanding about the discussion that is going to take place. As far as I am concerned it need only take a little time, but it might be lengthened by others. Last night Deputy Hogan asked for an opportunity to reply and, as that is quite proper, I would be glad that he should have that opportunity. I do not propose to occupy the time of the House to any considerable extent. What I want to make quite clear is that this rate has not been invented for the purpose of this particular scheme, nor has it behind it any of the animus which, unfortunately, was suggested, of deliberately reducing wages or doing anything of that kind. What happens in the case of a very large scheme is that there is a definitely segregated portion, roughly speaking, about £80,000, which is definitely analogous to drainage work in an existing drainage district. The drainage rate for Clare, as far as I know, for the last six or seven years was 27/-, and that particular rate was adopted for the work on this scheme for no other reason than the fact that it was the conventional rate, as is the drainage rate in a scheme of this kind. For instance, a portion of it is covered by something like £17,000 which is purely agricultural labouring work. In the same way there is included in that £1,500 for purely temporary accommodation roads for the purpose of getting plant in for the drainage work. That £1,500 could be taken out and a special rate made for it, but what was desired was to get a rate which would cover the whole of this kind of work which is anologous to drainage work. A large body of other work is going to be done by contract: (1) the construction of a concrete approach road also aprons to buildings and hangars; (2) water supply and sewerage; (3) buildings, including hangars; (4) construction of prepared surface runways; (5) the construction of sea breakwaters; (6) Pitching slopes to breakwaters; (7) construction of slipways and landing facilities; (8) dredging anchorage. All that is work that, as far as I know, will be done by contract and will be subject to the ordinary rates of contract in relation to the proper rate applicable to it. What I am trying to get at is that there is a definite segregation here between work which is obviously of a drainage character and work which is obviously not of a drainage character, and what is desired is to get a rate which will cover the whole of those works. We chose the highest rate which was available for work analogous to agricultural work in the district.

We have run up against a certain difficulty, but the men actually working have made their own direct representations in the matter and, as far as I know, all the difficulties which they have had up to the present have been met. I am perfectly satisfied that, as we go on, those representations will continue to be made and that those difficulties will be met as they come up. The only difficulty that I see that might in any way technically be in the mind of anyone in criticising this as a drainage rate is probably the difficulty which is in the mind of the mover of the motion that while this is—and nobody can possibly deny that —essentially drainage, and nothing else but drainage, it is ancillary to something which is not drainage—I mean, not agricultural drainage. The rate for drainage work has been set on the basis that the work actually done by those engaged in drainage is closely analogous to agricultural work, and the mere fact that that drainage has, in fact, been ancillary to other purposes has not affected the application of that drainage rate for the purpose.

I will take the case of the Barrow. In that case, a certain considerable amount of the effect of the drainage is not for the purpose of agricultural land at all, but benefited the property in urban areas, house property, and the rest in places liable to be flooded. Actually, some of these districts are being assessed on that valuation. Take the Cappamore drainage in Limerick. The big urge in relation to that district as far as my experience of the files is concerned, was to save the town of Cappamore from being flooded. Whenever I used to hear about Cappamore it was word from somebody to say, "Come and see Cappamore under water"; it was not, "Come and see the fields of Limerick under water," but "Come and see Cappamore under water." The fact that a good deal of the benefit of that particular scheme inured to the benefit of the town did not prevent a drainage wage, founded on agricultural wage, being used. In another case the town of Tullamore was benefited and a special assessment was made on the town, but that did not affect the purpose.

In case the Deputy may be under the misapprehension that it is the eventual purpose of the drainage which decides the wage on a scheme which is in its essence drainage, I think these things will disabuse his mind. All I can say is that we are very anxious to see that the labour conditions in this aerodrome are going to be satisfactory. There are going to be up to 400 men employed. We are going to have very definite difficulty in getting that amount of labour in that particular area, because geographically it is a most peculiar area. In the ordinary way, if you want 400 men in a certain district you will have 360 degrees in the circle to draw from. In this particular place, due to the fact that it is between the Shannon and the Fergus, you practically are out on a peninsula. You have only a very narrow radius from which to draw. For that reason, there are going to be difficulties in getting labour and we recognise that there are problems to be solved. All I can say is that, in the solving of these problems, every possible effort will be made to see that the conditions are those which will make for friendly and comfortable accord between those who have to do the job and those actually working on it. Any representations I have received up to the present have been directly dealt with. Any representations which I receive will be dealt with immediately and sympathetically. I am satisfied that, along those lines, we are more likely to obtain a solution of any difficulties we have than by discussions in this House. The difficulty concerning discussions of this kind is that one word borrows another——

Mr. Hogan

Post factum wisdom.

The suggestion is made that the Government is trying to pare down the level of wages. The suggestion is made that the Government are using the fact that there is an amount of labour available—it is not a large amount in that particular district—for the purpose of doing the work at the lowest possible level. That statement is utterly untrue. The wage in Rhynana was not founded upon any ad hoc reason of that kind. The wage in Rhynana was the rate which had been applicable to drainage work on which, so far as I know, £60,000 or £70,000 was spent, with the consent and agreement of the people of Clare.

Mr. Hogan

That is wrong.

One word borrows another.

Is it contended that this is not drainage? Is it contended that the rate should not be the drainage rate? Is it contended that the rate which is being paid in Clare, which represents a 3/- advance on the average agricultural wage of the district is not the proper rate? If it is not to apply to Clare, then it has got to be changed in relation to all other places. If that is done, the House will have to face the implications in relation to the whole of drainage and the raising of the cost. It will have specifically to face the implications in connection with the raising of the cost of hand labour relative to machine labour. A great many of the present drainage schemes are in the position that they have just barely passed. Any increase in the cost of drainage is going to reduce the total amount of drainage and any increase in the cost of labour is going to decrease the proportion of labour relative to machinery in the schemes which have been passed. That is a question I should be very glad to have discussed in the House. So long as that is not settled to be changed in relation to drainage as a whole, then, so far as I can see, we have no option but to say that in Rhynana the drainage rate was the right and proper rate. Again, I say any representation I receive in relation to labour down there will have the most sympathetic and careful consideration.

Mr. Hogan

Thanks for nothing.

Last night, the House listened to one of the filthiest and most uncouth speeches ever heard in this House. Coming from Deputy Hugo Flinn, Parliamentary Secretary in charge of the Board of Works, one did not expect very much better. Recently, that Deputy had the audacity and effrontery to profane the sacredness of an Irish funeral by suggesting that Irish funerals and Irish wakes were, in his mind, used for quite dishonourable purposes. Last night, we had from the Deputy a speech which came from the same filthy mind—a speech which constituted an attack upon the conditions of Irish workers and upon the right of anybody other than himself to regulate the conditions under which Irish workers should work. We were told last night by Deputy Flinn that one of the justifications for continuing the low rate of 27/- per week on this scheme is that, during the days of the Cumann na nGaedheal Administration, a similarly low wage of 27/- was paid. Apparently, everything else that Cumann na nGaedheal did, whether in the form of paying the land annuities or retaining the Oath or any other form, can be altered, but the wage-rates fixed by the Cumann na nGaedheal Administration are irrevocable so far as this Government is concerned.

Except when they reduced them.

The only reason they are irrevocable is that that low-wage mentality of the Cumann na nGaedheal Administration suits the whole outlook and purpose of the Parliamentary Secretary. A wage of 27/- per week is to be paid now simply because it was paid by the previous Administration. In the mind of the Parliamentary Secretary, there is no reason for changing the wage-rate.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce, who sat in during this debate last night, could have told the Parliamentary Secretary that, during the past four or five years, there has been a distinctly upward tendency in industrial wage-rates. If there has not been a similarly upward tendency in respect of agricultural wages, it is due to the unparalleled depression which exists in the agricultural industry. Seeing that the Minister for Industry and Commerce accepts the position that officials of his Department can preside over conferences and fix rates of wages higher than those which obtained five or ten years ago, is there not something illogical in the fact that a State Department, such as the Board of Works, should hold up its hands in holy horror at any prospect of increasing the wage-rates which existed ten years ago? We are told by the Parliamentary Secretary that, in his opinion, a wage of 27/- per week is good enough for workers on this scheme. A wage of 4/6 per day is good enough to maintain a man, his wife and children, according to the wage mentality of the Parliamentary Secretary. Four and sixpence per day is the rate of wages being paid on this State scheme at Rhynana, though it is not so many years ago since the present Government Party denounced in unmeasured terms the higher wage of 32/- per week being paid on the Shannon scheme.

Hear, hear!

Thirty-two shillings per week was not good enough for Irish workers when the Fianna Fáil Party wanted the votes of the workers, but now 27/- per week is a generous wage, so far as the Parliamentary Secretary in charge of the Board of Works is concerned. If these two declarations do not reveal the grossest and rankest hypocrisy, I have yet to conjure up any real explanation of the meaning of the word "hypocrisy"—4/6 per day on a State aerial scheme— on preparing plant and premises for a State aerial scheme.

That is not true.

That is true.

There is neither plant nor premises being constructed there.

The place will ultimately be used for plant and premises. What is the use of quibbling?

Exactly.

The Deputy is not quibbling. He is only misrepresenting.

Four and sixpence per day is the Parliamentary Secretary's conception of the standard of living that he would extend to Irish workers and their families, and even this 4/6 per day can only be earned during good weather. There is a good deal of broken time on this scheme, and many of these workers never get 27/- per week or 4/6 per day. Many of them spend as many as 30 and 40 hours per week walking to and from this scheme in order to earn, not the 27/- per week, but sometimes two-thirds of that sum, due to broken time. This is a State scheme, and these are the standards of wages that the Parliamentary Secretary prescribes for Irish workers. I quoted in another debate a statement by a responsible body, such as the British Medical Association, that in order to maintain workers in the barest state of health it was necessary, in the opinion of that association, to spend £1 3s. 8d. per week on food in the conditions that obtained in Britain in 1933. Many of these people who are working for 27/- per week can never spend even that low sum of money on food because many of them do not earn £1 3s. 8d. per week under the wage scales fixed by the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Hogan

They earn it all right, but they do not get it.

Four and sixpence per day is now the Parliamentary Secretary's declaration of the standard that should exist for Irish workers employed on this or on similar work. If that is the kind of republic that we are going to get, if that is the kind of republic that the Parliamentary Secretary is striving for, then God help the workers in that republic if he has anything to do with fixing wage rates or their conditions of employment. The other evening we had an effort by the Minister for Industry and Commerce to suggest that the unemployment assistance standards were not intended to be the State's measure of what was necessary in order to maintain healthy existence. We cannot have that statement on this occasion. On this occasion the State is definitely carrying out a work which is not a relief scheme, which is a normal piece of work, and which, in many respects, compares with the work undertaken on the Shannon scheme so far as drainage and excavation are concerned. Yet, the very Administration which condemned that low rate of wages now fixes a wage for this State scheme at Rhynana at 5/- a week below the intolerably low rates fixed in connection with the Shannon scheme.

Last night, again to show his vulgarity, and again to show that he was not one of the mere Irish, the Parliamentary Secretary wanted to have a bet of £500 on the conditions under which those unfortunate people at Rhynana are being paid 4/6 a day. Clearly, none of the Rhynana workers could take up that bet, even if the Parliamentary Secretary were prepared to lay ten to one. These workers at 4/6 a day are not in a position to have many £500 bets, and yet we had the brazen audacity of the Parliamentary Secretary, who is paying these workers 4/6 a day, standing up in this House and offering to have a bet of £500 on the conditions under which they are being sweated by his authority. I imagine that there must be decent members in the Fianna Fáil Party who did not find it easy to swallow a statement of that kind.

Of course, the Parliamentary Secretary's vulgarity could not even end with his willingness to offer £500 bets over the 4/6 a day wage that he is paying on this scheme. The Parliamentary Secretary went further, and, in the course of an attempted reply to Deputy Hogan's motion, indulged in comments about the electoral strength of the Labour Party, and about its authority to raise this matter in the House. I am glad to notice that this morning the tone of the Parliamentary Secretary has changed. Apparently those in the Party who possess good manners have had in the meantime a severe talk with the Parliamentary Secretary. Last night we had a virago addressing this House. This morning the Parliamentary Secretary comes in like a cooing dove after the Party managers had suitably instructed him that that kind of language was much too vulgar for him to get away with. The Parliamentary Secretary chose to make an attack on the rights of the Labour Party to raise this matter in the House. Deputy Hogan's right to do so was insultingly referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary. We were told last night that, as a matter of fact, the only person who has any right to regulate conditions there, or to look after the interests of Irish workers, was none other than Deputy Flinn, the Parliamentary Secretary. It may be that the Labour Party's strength in this House is not as great as it ought to be, but then our electoral system produce strange results, and one of the most amazing of these results to me is that in a democratic country, where there is free education, enlightened people, and workers in particular, should elect to this House one who possess the tongue of a sewer rat such as Deputy Flinn possesses.

And done by the instructions of the Fianna Fáil Party.

These personalities do not help debate.

The Parliamentary Secretary started them last night.

I challenge that.

I repeat that the Parliamentary Secretary started them last night.

On a point of order. I raise the question whether or not the Deputy is entitled to say that I used any language of a personal character. We have just heard the expression "sewer rat." I challenge the suggestion that has been made that I started it.

It is hardly fair to the rat.

It is not for the Chair to pronounce on the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary or of any other Deputy of the House. The expression "sewer rat" is not parliamentary and should not be applied to any Deputy.

The Parliamentary Secretary last night indulged in vulgarities and we are not going to deal with him in any other way.

The Chair intends to deal sternly with any Deputy who uses such language.

I will use it in respect to the Parliamentary Secretary for his language.

We shall see in due time.

There are one or two points that I wish to make on this motion. I do not know that the members of the Labour Party have the right to appear surprised, as they seem to, at the performance of the Parliamentary Secretary last night. I do not think Deputy Norton was correct in describing it as the worst performance that the Parliamentary Secretary has given in this House. I think that we have had much worse performances from him. Deputy Norton wrongs the Parliamentary Secretary when he accuses him of standing for a wage of 27/- a week, because the Parliamentary Secretary does not stand for that. Do not Deputy Norton, Deputy Hogan and other members of the Labour Party remember the Parliamentary Secretary telling us in this House that the person who would dare to stand between an unemployed man and a wage of 21/- a week would be torn limb from limb? That is the mentality of the gentleman who is put in charge of relief schemes and schemes that are not relief schemes but which, for the purpose of low wages, are treated as relief schemes.

The Labour Party cannot escape a certain responsibility themselves, because it was they who put Deputy Flinn there and it is they who are keeping Deputy Flinn there. I do not believe there is any member of the Fianna Fáil Party who has the same outlook, and, I must say, the same contempt for Irish workers and, in particular, for the Irish unemployed, as Deputy Flinn has. That was not evident to-day or yesterday; last night was not the first time when it was made evident. He made the statement clearly in the House as a threat definitely to us, that if we dared to stand between an unemployed man and 21/- a week we would be torn limb from limb. This morning the Deputy denied that he was at any time, or is now, taking advantage of the fact that there are huge numbers of unemployed in the country. What was the meaning of that statement? The Deputy's mentality is quite well known.

Deputy Norton talked about wages conditions under the previous Government. It is fairly well on record here what my views were with reference to the wages paid by the previous Government. I think there was no member of the Dáil who attacked those wages conditions as often and as vigorously as I did. I did not then, and neither do I now, agree that they were reasonable conditions, but I will say that they were infinitely superior to the wages that are being paid by the present Government, in particular having regard to the increase in the cost of living. The Deputy knows that the purchasing power of wages to-day is not at all as great as in those days. The Deputy knows that the conditions on the Shannon scheme were quite different to the conditions on this scheme. He knows that they represent more than a mere difference of 5/- a week. The wage of 32/- paid on the Shannon scheme, bad as it was, was a minimum rate and many workers doing similar work to what is being done at Rhynana got £2 per week, and even £2 2s. and £2 4s. per week. It is only fair that that should be said. It must be remembered also that a great deal of the work at the beginning of the Shannon scheme was work exactly similar to what is being done at Rhynana.

Let me put a final point to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. If the Government decided to establish this air base in the County Dublin, near the City of Dublin, what wages would they decide to pay? Would they dare to offer 27/-, or even 37/- a week?

They would offer the standard rate for the district.

The Minister would be obliged to pay a higher rate because there are trade unions in and around Dublin strong enough to insist on the fixing of a decent rate of wages. The Minister would not get the work done for 27/- a week, and he knows that. The Parliamentary Secretary tells us that they are not taking advantage of the existing conditions. Of course they are. We know the mentality of the Parliamentary Secretary quite well. The responsibility is not altogether his. Those who helped to put him there and who keep him there will have to share some of the responsibility.

I am supporting the motion moved by Deputy Hogan and supported by Deputy Keyes. I want to say that the Labour Party should not be charged with the responsibility of keeping Deputy Flinn, the Parliamentary Secretary, in public life in this country. It is unfair to the Labour Party. After all, the Fianna Fáil Party must share in the blame, if there is any. I want to say on behalf of the citizens of Cork, so far as the responsible citizens are concerned anyhow, the persons who do not go according to the instructions of the Fianna Fáil Clubs in order to keep Deputy Flinn in the House——

The subject before the House is not the election of the Parliamentary Secretary, who, by the way, has been referred to persistently for the last half hour as Deputy Flinn. It is the custom to refer to a Parliamentary Secretary as such.

On a point of order. The ruling you have just given is entirely novel to me and it does not correspond with what is actually printed in the rules of order or the rules of procedure of this House. After all, there are several Parliamentary Secretaries, and I submit that it is much more convenient that it should be open to Deputies to refer to them by their names. I also submit that, for example, in the British House of Commons, it is not by any means compulsory on members to refer to people holding similar positions as the Parliamentary Secretary of so-and-so.

The procedure in the British House of Commons is of interest to the Chair, but does not govern its rulings. It is not obligatory to address the Parliamentary Secretary as such, but it has been customary. There seems to the Chair to-day to be a deliberate design to speak of the Parliamentary Secretary as Deputy Flinn.

I would like to explain that I only referred to the British procedure because our rules are obviously copied from them.

In view of the remarks of the Chair I shall remember to refer to him as Deputy Flinn, Parliamentary Secretary, or, to give him his full title, Deputy Flinn, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance. It was in order to economise time that I called him Deputy Flinn, instead of Parliamentary Secretary. In order further to economise time, I will say that it is most unfair to blame the Labour Party, to saddle all the responsibility on them for having the Parliamentary Secretary here. The Fianna Fáil Party too must take their share of the blame and some of the so-called trade unionists in the ranks of Fianna Fáil must take responsibility. Deputy Corry seems anxious to interrupt. The Deputy always interjects something about the "poor, misfortunate farmers." Many farmers object to that; they do not like being called "poor, misfortunate farmers." The Deputy keeps up that reference just like a parrot.

The wages paid on this scheme to workers who have to work in all sorts of weather, and who in many cases have to travel long distances to their work, are undoubtedly inadequate—I do not want to apply any other adjective. The wages are entirely inadequate. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance last evening said that rubber boots were supplied to these workers and that at times they were only up to their ankles in the water. The Parliamentary Secretary must know as well as I do that the weather conditions in this country are very variable and that while on one portion of a road in a certain condition of the weather these boots may not be at all necessary, there are other portions of the road where the men will require thigh boots in order to work.

They have thigh boots.

For fly fishing on a Sunday they could use them.

Exactly, but I do not wish now to depart from the subject-matter of the motion; there is a lot of important business before the House, and I intend to speak on another matter later. I just wish to protest against the charge made against the Labour Party, and to say that they are not fully responsible for having the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance in this House.

Thanks very much.

I do not know whether the mover of this motion, or the seconder, or the Labour Party, in general, feel at all grateful for the intervention of their former colleagues, Deputies Morrissey and Anthony, in this debate. I do not think they added anything to the tone of it and I certainly do not think they have helped the case which has been sought to be made by Deputy Hogan in moving the motion.

Does the Minister prefer Deputy Norton's term?

No, but I think that even Deputy Norton would draw the line at Deputy Anthony and Deputy Morrissey.

Would the Minister indicate in what way?

The Labour Party have already indicated in what way. The Deputy can throw his mind back to the end of 1931——

You throw your mind back to the time you missed the train at Mallow.

——when they indicated that they did not desire to be associated with Deputy Anthony.

And when the Parliamentary Secretary was loudly protesting his loyalty——

If the Chair's call for order be not heeded the consequences may be unpleasant for certain Deputies.

It is not worth while taking up the time of the House with Deputy Anthony and Deputy Morrissey any longer. I should like to congratulate the mover of the motion upon a very astute piece of special pleading. I gather that one of the first things all budding advocates learn is that if they have a bad case the right thing to do is to attack the other man's representative in the issue.

Mr. Hogan

That is not the first wrong thing you learned.

Accordingly, when the mover of the motion came to justify the terms of it to the House, the one thing he carefully avoided was a statement of the facts in the matter. This issue was put against the background of the world. We remember the very eloquent and polysyllabic phrases which the Deputy used on a number of occasions to let the people of the country think that all this was being done, not for the benefit and advantage of this small country and this comparatively poor community but for weathy international corporations, and that the work which was being carried out at Rhynana was work of a character which was unique in this country and that upon this highly specialised work there was being paid to the men in Rhynana an unusually low rate of wages.

We have heard a great deal about the terms in which the Parliamentary Secretary characterised that charge, but I do think that if a person is told that he is deliberately trying to grind the faces of the poor, and deliberately trying to reduce the standard of living of the workers in this country, if an attack is launched on the Government charging them in general terms with endeavouring to introduce coolie conditions of labour in this country, if words mean anything in the mind of the man who utters them, the person to whom such language is addressed is entitled to show very just resentment, and to show it in just the same unmeasured way as that in which the charge was levelled against him. That was the atmosphere in which this question was originally discussed. That was the atmosphere which was created when the discussion was initiated. And it was done deliberately. It was done, as I have said, to obscure the facts of the case. What are the facts? Here is a drainage district where drainage works were formerly carried out. It is now being reconditioned, and what is the type and character of the work? We are not building workshops, hangars, concrete runways, special embankments, or reclaiming any land destroyed. There is no specialised work being carried out there at the moment.

Is there canalisation to be done on the scheme? We ought not to have obscurities drawn up here in an endeavour to cloud our minds. Some of us know something about the works just as well as the Board of Works.

I do not remember interrupting Deputy Hogan or Deputy Keyes. I listened very patiently when we were being told that the first broadcast message which went out from the broadcasting station there was: "The Irish Government is paying starvation rates of wages on its works."

That is the station's signal.

I understand that Deputy Hogan is a man of imagination. He referred to me as a poet. I know, of course, when he stated that the first message that went out from this wireless station was that the Irish Government was paying a starvation rate of wages, that he had simply gone and taken out his poetic licence and was indulging in the same sort of imaginative language——

Mr. Hogan

As you.

——as I would, and therefore, I listened to him with a fellow feeling. I do not feel the same resentment towards Deputy Hogan as a man would who might take him very seriously. Let us get back again to what the facts are. Here was a drainage district which was being reconditioned. It had already been drained. The work at present being carried out there consists, mainly, as the Parliamentary Secretary told the House last night—and these are the facts which govern and determine the issue—of the opening up of existing drains, sluices and outfalls—all being done by hand labour; the clearing of bushes, undergrowth, etc.—all being done by hand labour, and work that is done from day to day or, at any rate, from season to season, on the farms around Rhynana, and done by agricultural labourers paid agricultural rates; the excavation of main drains and boundary drains, levelling and grading, excavating trenches for subsoil drains, laying subsoil drains, back-filling with stone and replacing turf —ordinary field drainage, piping, culverting and filling existing drains, laying temporary surface roads— accommodation roads, as the Parliamentary Secretary has told the House——

The same as a county council.

——including quarrying; strengthening existing embankments; and the preparation of the soil for grass surfacing, including ploughing, harrowing, rolling, fertilising and sowing. That is the work being carried out down in Rhynana, and all this talk about transcontinental, international, inter-imperial services, and all that sort of thing, has nothing at all to do with the issue. Yet it was the background against which Deputy Hogan deliberately set this motion.

Mr. Hogan

Has the cost of living anything to do with it?

No; but what has something to do with it, and what has a great deal to do with it, is the agricultural rate in the district, because, as the Deputy knows, and as he was informed last night, this is not the first drainage work carried out in County Clare. Since 1929, there have been drainage works, costing, I think, roughly £40,000, carried out in and around that area in County Clare, and the rate which has been paid on these works has been consistently 27/- a week.

Mr. Hogan

And that put these people there and you here.

In 1932, that rate was being paid in County Clare. It was being paid generally, and we had an election in 1933 and we came back. The reason we came back is that the people know that so far as these wage rates are concerned there is no foundation for the Labour Party's accusation that we are deliberately trying to reduce rates of wages in this country. After all, the workers on the scheme and the workers everywhere else throughout the country know that, as far as all this talk is concerned, we have been endeavouring to raise the standard of living of the people.

But it has been going down.

It has not been going down and the Deputy cannot produce any evidence to that effect.

Agricultural labourers wages?

I said the standard of living. It has not been going down and the Deputy cannot produce any single statistical fact which would indicate that the standard of living has gone down since this Government came into office.

You can go into any labour exchange in the country and you will find that it has.

I was pointing out that the rate which has been paid at Rhynana is the rate which has been consistently paid on drainage schemes and drainage works in County Clare.

May I ask——

Am I to be allowed to proceed without continuous interruption?

I only want to know if the Minister is referring to relief works.

Drainage works are not relief works. Drainage works are not carried out purely and primarily as relief works. Occasionally, in order to provide employment, drainage work which would be otherwise unjustifiable, may be subsidised and helped out of the relief votes, but a drainage scheme per se is not a relief work. When I speak of drainage works in County Clare, I mean works which have been carried out under the various Drainage Acts which have been passed by the Dáil and in connection with which a rate of wages has been fixed apart altogether from the rate paid on relief works. The rate of wages on drainage works has been fixed with regard, and in strict relation, to the general agricultural wages in the district. I am informed that in this particular district the agricultural wage is 24/- per week. It has been the custom and it has been laid down that where drainage works are being carried out the rate of wages paid on these works shall be 3/- per week higher than the rate for agricultural wages in the district.

Is that the average county rate?

Yes. The average county rate for agricultural wages is 24/-. Therefore, this rate of wages was fixed in accordance with regulations that have been several times debated in this House and which, though they might sometimes have been challenged by one Deputy or another, have been in general accepted by this House as affording a fair rate of wages. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, taking into consideration the position of people who have to work as agricultural labourers, who have to pay some part of this expenditure and who would have to pay more if the rates of wages on Government schemes were going to be inflated too highly— taking all these factors into consideration, this House has universally accepted the proposition that since drainage works and field works of this kind are in one way or another analogous to the ordinary work of an agricultural labourer, there should be a relation between the agricultural wage rate and the wage rate which is paid on drainage schemes.

It was never universally accepted by the House. It was imposed by the majority.

I say, generally accepted. It was also accepted by reasonable people throughout the country.

It was not universally accepted, as you say.

The rates of wages paid on these schemes must have some relation to the general wage rate. We did not fix the general wage rate and we have no power to fix it. I think it would be very difficult looking at the multiplicity of interests—

Why not set a good headline?

Looking at the multiplicity of interests concerned, I think it would be a very difficult thing for this House to fix the general wage rate all over the country. We are going to try to do something like that, and the House passed yesterday a Bill which will enable Agricultural Wages Boards to be set up which will be in a position to investigate conditions in the various areas and which will be, we hope, able to do something to get a wage rate fixed which will be recognised as, in all the circumstances, what the industry can bear and what it can pay. When that has been done, I can certainly undertake that a relationship will be instituted between the rate which is recommended by the Agricultural Wages Board and the rate which will be paid on works carried out under Government auspices. But it is not possible for the Government and it would not be fair for the Government, having regard to its duty to other interests in the country, not merely to those who happen to be employees there, but also to those who have to provide employment, to fix wholly inflated rates because the work happened to be carried out under Government auspices. We are paying a higher rate of wages, and even Deputy Hogan must admit that himself, on this work at Rhynana and on other works which are carried out as relief works pure and simple, in agricultural and in rural areas, than is generally paid to the agricultural labourer in these districts. I do not think we ought to make the difference too high. If we do, we are going to create great difficulties for everybody concerned in these districts.

The Minister does not want to create difficulties for the bank managers or the Chambers of Commerce.

I wonder what bank manager is controlling the business in Rhynana? I wonder what Chamber of Commerce is interested there? There are farmers in that neighbourhood who have to employ labourers. There are farmers who, out of the produce of their holdings, have to provide for themselves, their families and their workers and we cannot unduly inflate the level of wages on Government schemes in comparison with the rate paid to agricultural labourers in the district in which the works are carried out.

Is there any consideration for the worker and his family? Which is the primary consideration?

The primary consideration is that the State has to carry on as a whole.

And the devil take the hindmost. Is that the Minister's philosophy?

No. The position is this. We have admitted quite frankly, and we are taking practical steps to remedy it, that there is need for some sort of regulation of agricultural wages in this country. We have taken practical steps to give effect to our belief in that regard.

You have been forced to do it.

We have not. That Bill was in contemplation long before the Labour Party took the initiative in the matter at all.

It would be still in contemplation if it were not for us.

It would not.

Take the case of the ground rents.

Is there any limit to Deputy Davin's irrelevancies?

Take the white elephants.

There are marks on them by now.

I gathered that Deputy Hogan was going to reply in this debate. If the Labour Party continue to waste time and make me the instrument——

You are a good instrument.

You are talking rubbish.

I do not think I am talking rubbish.

Mr. Murphy

You talked rubbish from the first time I ever saw you in this House.

If Deputy Murphy or any other Deputy thinks over the position he will have to agree with me. There is no use in their being angry about it. I am talking about facts which have to be faced. I did say this, and I repeat it, that the Government realised that there is need for the regulation of agricultural wages in this country. In accordance with that, the Dáil yesterday passed through its final stages a Bill which was introduced by this Government to permit the rate of wages for agricultural workers to be fixed. That was not done during the past ten years. I am not so sure whether outside Great Britain it has been done anywhere other than in this country. By doing so, we showed that we are not insensible to the needs of agricultural workers. Not merely that, but in order that we may do as much as we can, taking into consideration all the interests involved in this matter, wherever the Government carries out work under its auspices it does pay its workers higher than the agricultural rate. It cannot pay them so high that it would bring to a standstill, possibly, the whole agricultural industry in this country, but taking all the factors into consideration we are doing our best to pay them something more. If, when the agricultural wages boards are set up, higher rates are fixed, then I say that the Government will endeavour to maintain the same relation as it maintains to-day between the wages paid on schemes carried out under its auspices and the general agricultural wage in the district, taking into consideration all the circumstances of that time. I say that the Government's own record in regard to social services, in regard to the endeavours which it is making to provide employment for the people, in regard to the steps which it is taking to house the people decently and properly, and in regard even to this question of agricultural wages, absolutely disproves the charges which were levelled last night by Deputy Hogan and this morning by Deputy Norton. The Government is prepared, on its record, to go to the working-class people of this country, and it will go to them without any fear.

I just want to put one point before the Minister for Finance. He has laid down a very definite ruling, claiming to have the support of the whole country behind him, and that was that when works of this particular kind were carried out not as relief works but as ordinary constructive works throughout the country it was the suitable thing to add 3/- to the average current labourers' wages in the district, and to pay that. In the circumstances that exist in the country I consider that a very serious statement on the part of the Minister for Finance, and to involve certain serious considerations for agriculture. He resists the criticism of the 27/- a week in Clare, that is the 24/- agricultural wage, plus 3/-. He resists any increase in that on the ground that if the principle was departed from wages would be paid on a standard that might bring to a standstill the whole agricultural industry. It is being maintained by the Government that farmers at the present time are able to pay a better wage to agricultural labourers than they are paying. He said they introduced a measure which was finally passed yesterday in order to deal with that. The Minister for Finance seems to disagree.

Some farmers, was what I said.

At any rate the attitude of the Government is that the average wages at present paid to agricultural labourers are below the level that the industry should pay. The Minister for Finance will maintain that. He will claim that the reason why the Agricultural Wages Bill was introduced was because they were convinced of that, and because they were convinced they could increase them. It is stated that the Agricultural Labourers Wages Bill can be got working in time to improve matters in May, but surely if the Minister is convinced of the justice that is denied to the agricultural labourers at the present time he ought to do something on his part to give some of that justice now. It is in his power at the present time to do something to raise the agricultural wages throughout the country by giving a better Government lead. The reason I refer to the standard he lays down is that over the greater part of the country—taking Louth, Meath and all that area across to Galway—the average wages paid to agricultural labourers is 20/- a week.

The principle on which the Minister for Finance asks the House to reject the motion which is before it now is that if this work were being carried out in any of those counties it would be paid for at the rate of 23/-. In County Wexford we are informed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce that the agricultural labourers' wages this year are 19/- a week. On the principle on which the Minister for Finance asks us to reject this motion now, if this work were being carried out in Wexford and not in Clare the wages that would be paid in Wexford would be 22/- a week. I think some member of the Government ought to clear up the points which the Minister for Finance has left so obscure. The Government claims that agricultural labourers are, on the average, being done an injustice to-day. The argument they are putting up against this motion would hold that injustice there. As I say, the Deputies from Wexford who are asked to resist Deputy Hogan's motion here now are asked to consider that 22/- a week would be enough for work of this particular class in Wexford. Deputies from Louth, Galway and Kerry are asked to consider that 23/- would be sufficient. The Minister has not been convincing.

The Minister for Finance, in his usual eloquent and emphatic style, boasted that the Fianna Fáil Government had freely brought forward this Agricultural Wages Bill for the purpose of improving the standard of wages of the agricultural labourers. I know that the Minister does not know everything about what goes on in Cabinet circles, and I suggest to him that he should take advantage of the earliest possible opportunity to find out from his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, the conditions and circumstances under which that Bill was extracted from the Ministry, and as a result of which it was passed through its final stages in this House yesterday. If the Minister wants really reliable information on the matter, I think documentary evidence could be handed to him to convince him that that Bill was not brought in by the Fianna Fáil Government as freely as he would like the House to believe. Evidence is available in support of what I say. I would prefer that the Minister should have a private consultation with his own colleague on the matter before speaking again in the same strain as he spoke here this morning. In my opinion, the Minister gave a good deal of evidence in support of the motion moved by Deputy Hogan. He admitted, in reading out particulars of the work that is being done in Rhynana, that quarrying work is being done there as well as excavation work and the laying of roads. That is not usually done in connection with arterial drainage schemes.

No roads are being laid, except temporary ones.

The Minister made it quite clear from the information he has given the House that the work is comparable with the work carried out by country council workers who are paid at the rate of 35/- in County Clare.

Mr. Hogan

And no broken time.

The Minister also talked about fixing the rates paid on arterial drainage schemes at a figure of 3/- per week above the rate paid to agricultural labourers. I challenge— and the members of this Party challenge, and I have challenged it successfully before—the reliability of the figures available in the Department of Finance regarding the rates of wages paid by representative farmers in this country. I assert here quite emphatically that the figures which are available in the Department of Finance and the Board of Works are not reliable, and I have proved them to be unreliable in my own area. Some time ago, the same Minister for Finance, in consultation with the Minister for Lands, started a forestry scheme at a place called Kinnitty in Offaly, and, to the amazement of the workers all around that countryside, fixed the rate of wages at 22/- a week. The secretary of the local branch of the Transport Union wrote to me asking me to draw the attention of the Minister for Lands to this matter, and expressing the opinion—his letter is on the file—that some mistake must have been made by the ganger in paying this previously unheard of rate to the men employed on that scheme. All around the countryside, where the same kind of scheme was being carried out, the rate of wages paid before that was about 28/- a week. I sent it to Senator Connolly, the then Minister for Lands, who was in charge of the Department, and he informed me that the figure fixed was fixed as a result of a decision by what is known as the Wages Advisory Committee.

That was the first time that I, personally, had heard of the existence of this secret Wages Advisory Committee that evidently advises Deputy Flinn, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, and other members of the Department on the rates of wages to be fixed in connection with these schemes. However, I brought the matter up in the House, following my failure to get any satisfactory settlement of that particular dispute. The men concerned had refused to carry on and there was a dispute in the locality. Senator Connolly, in the debate that took place here, informed me that the rate of wages, which was 22/- a week, was fixed after the Department had looked for and secured the rates of wages paid by representative farmers in the locality. I was aware that the information in regard to the figures paid by what are called representative farmers in the locality were supplied to the Ministry—I do not say all the figures were supplied, but in some cases they were supplied—by local Fianna Fáil clubs. I had also in my possession proof—and I had satisfied myself on it—that there were farmers—three of them, at any rate—in the very same locality, who gave a good deal of employment who were actually paying £1 a week to their agricultural labourers, plus meals. Now, if 22/- a week was correct for the forestry workers, the average rate paid by the farmers should be 19/-. It must be remembered also that these agricultural labourers were employed all the year round, and not on casual work as most of the workers on State-aided schemes are employed. I challenge the figure of 24/- a week so far as it affects the Country Clare. I do not accept the figures of the Department of Finance and other Government Departments concerning the rates of wages paid by representative farmers—decent farmers —in the various localities in this country. I make this point—and I am sure it will appeal to Deputy Corry. Deputy Corry is a farmer, and whatever Deputy Anthony and other Deputies may think of him, I take off my hat to him for the speech he made, on the Second Reading, in support of the Agricultural Wages Bill. If Deputy Corry could succeed in inducing the farmers of this country to accept the point of view that he put forward when speaking on the Second Reading of that Bill, it would be a good day for the farmers of this country. If he should speak in this debate, I ask him to say that agricultural labourers who are continuously employed at whatever may be the prevailing rate for the locality concerned—and it is more, in my opinion, than 24/- in the Country Clare; that is, the rate—paid by decent farmers at any rate—are better off and that it means more to the workingman than the 24/- which he gets for these casual relief works such as this scheme at Rhynana or elsewhere.

The agricultural labourer is far better off, because he has continuous employment and, in the majority of cases, has also meals and milk for his family and, in many cases, he has housing and grazing on the land of his employer at a nominal rent. I think that the Minister for Finance is altogether wrong when he compares the conditions of the men employed on relief schemes at 24/-, or 22/- as it is in western counties, with the case of the agricultural labourers. The case made here is that this work is no different from the work being carried out under the county councils where the wage is up to 35/- a week. I think that, if anything, the Minister for Finance, by his speech, has really made a good point in favour of Deputy Hogan's amendment.

I support this motion, Sir, but in doing so I wish to make it plain that I entirely disbelieve in any suggestion that either the Government as a whole, or even the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, is animated by a desire to depress the rates of wages throughout the country. I think that, altogether, the most convincing speech that has been made on this motion was the speech that was made a few moments ago by Deputy Mulcahy. It appears that the Government regard the Bill that has just been passed, the Agricultural Wages Bill, as an argument in their favour, but I suggest that that Bill is fatal to their present contentions. There is talk of bringing the agricultural industry in this country to a standstill. Now, if the Agricultural Wages Bill is to perform anything like what is hoped of it, it will result in the increase of agricultural wages, generally, by several shillings a week. That is to be done—and I supported its being done—irrespective of any danger that may exist of its bringing the agricultural industry to a standstill. If there is a danger, where does it lie? Is it more likely that raising the wages of agricultural labourers, to be paid by farmers, by several shillings a week should bring the agricultural industry into difficulties, or is it more likely that the increase of Government wages by some shillings a week would bring the agricultural industry into difficulties?

Why should we not have some figures given to us? We are not dealing with relief works, but we are dealing with Government works other than relief works. When Deputy Fagan, yesterday or the day before, said that 30/-was, in his opinion, the lowest weekly wage on which a man could keep himself and his family in any sort of decency, there were cheers from the Government Benches. If that is the case, what would it really cost the Government to raise the wages paid for any works that they undertake, other than relief works, at any rate, to 30/- a week? It seems to me that now that we, very properly, have embarked upon an inquiry and embarked upon reform in relation to this whole matter of agricultural wages, the Government cannot rid themselves of the duty that, preeminently, lies upon them to see that the wages given to people working on schemes of theirs are wages that enable the workers to keep themselves and their families in some sort of decency.

Before concluding, Sir, I wish to raise a point of order that I do not like to let go unnoticed. I did not like to interrupt Deputy Norton, but he alluded several times to what he called "the filthy mind" of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance. Well, I am no admirer of the style of oratory of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, but I think it would be deplorable if a precedent were set for treating such an expression as "filthy mind," applied to another member of this House, as a Parliamentary expression.

The Deputy is quite right in saying that the term should not be used in this House.

There is one matter in which I wish to correct Deputy Davin. The Deputy made a statement that we were forced to bring in the Agricultural Wages Bill. I can assure Deputy Davin that many months before any motion from the Labour Party on this matter appeared on the Order Paper I was chairman of a committee that went into the agricultural question. That committee brought in a report recommending the Bill that has been before the House this week. That report was unanimously adopted by my Party.

They do not tell you everything.

I know very well that Deputy Davin and others have a little habit, whenever they hear a whisper or get an idea that any thing like that is coming on, of putting down a motion on the Order Paper asking to have done what they know has been already decided upon.

When was that committee set up?

In 1934.

I can give Deputy Corry more information on that matter.

The Deputy had a brain wave. On this particular point I want to say that to my mind Deputy Hogan has opened up a very wide question because I understand that work of this kind is about to go on in my constituency sometime soon. This, I understand, is work where a site will have to be prepared for an aeroplane base. Now people who used aeroplanes in any country in the world are people who can dang well afford to pay for them and to my mind the preparation of the ground for building an aeroplane base has no relation at all to agricultural work. Apparently, there seems to be no objection to pay big money to a so-called expert who comes over to fly over a bit of bog and to tell the authorities that that is a nice place for an aeroplane base. That gentleman is paid a couple of thousand pounds for his job.

And a dinner at Dublin Castle.

And there is no objection to paying £2,000 a year to gentlemen for walking around the grounds of an aeroplane base and saying they are the bosses. I suggest that work of this kind has no relation to relief work or agricultural work, or to the wages paid for work of that kind; the wages paid to men employed preparing an aeroplane base should not be on a level with the wage paid to men on drainage work. I make this statement more or less as a warning before hand so that, in the case of any work of that kind that may be contemplated in my constituency, the wages are not to be based on agricultural rates of wages.

That is the stuff to give them.

I hope I am expressing my opinions honestly. At all events, that is what I am trying to do.

The Deputy's vote would be more useful.

We know where Deputy Morrissey's vote goes and we are aware of the vote that brought him over to where he is now.

Deputy Corry had better be very careful.

Not of Deputy Morrissey. In connection with this motion, statements were also made about agricultural wages. I have heard statements made by the Labour Party on the reliability of wages statistics quoted in this House on both sides. These have no relation at all to the actual local wage paid in the district in question. I say that the people who prepared those figures do not know what they are talking about. I have seen figures for Cork County, and for other counties as well. Farmers here listening to me are aware of the regular rates paid in their districts. What usually happens is this: a Gárda walks in to a farmhouse and says to the labourer there: "Mick, what are you getting?" and Mick says: "I am paid 12/- a week." That 12/- is written down. But the Gárda never looks into the board and lodging that that labourer is getting. That is never considered at all. This is one of the factors that is bringing down this so-called rate of wages. The ordinary labourer working in any other scheme would pay 15/- or 20/-a week for board and lodging, and if those who compiled those wage figures were to put down 15/- to 20/- a week for board and lodging for the labourer, you would have an entirely different situation, and entirely different figures with regard to the wages of agricultural labourers. There are, of course, black sheep in every flock. Amongst industrialists you will find a scabby fellow trying to knock what he can off the wages of his men. An odd farmer may be found to be doing the same. The Bill was brought in to deal with the black sheep. I am giving the House my honest opinion on this matter. Now, with regard to the aeroplane base, I want again to say that people who fly in aeroplanes are not men earning £1 or £2 a week. They are people who can very well afford to pay £10 or £12 for a short trip, and it follows that the syndicates concerned with preparing these aeroplane bases can afford to pay a decent wage to the men engaged in preparing the base on which travellers by aeroplane are to land, that is, if they land there at all, and if they do not land in the sea.

During the debate on this motion, there have been a very great many regrettable features, and I have listened to a great many regrettable utterances. The speech to which we have listened from Deputy Corry is obviously a speech which shows that the Deputy has given some study to this whole question. Therefore, I welcome it as a useful contribution to this debate. On other occasions I have heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance speeches of the same calibre as that to which we listened last night. We had his speech of last night continued in a subdued mood this morning. I am not surprised at that speech, because many years ago I made up my mind with regard to the Parliamentary Secretary's attitude on wages. I think it is no exaggeration, or it is not unfair to him, to say that the Parliamentary Secretary has never made any attempt to hide his contempt for the working people of this country. That is obvious in every way, and especially in the policy he is carrying out in his office at the moment.

I have seen some extraordinary transformations in this House over a number of years. But I think the most complete and perfect transformation that has taken place is what we see in the case of the Minister for Finance. In one of the usual foolish moments associated with youth, many years ago, I purchased a volume of poems by John Francis MacEntee. Every line of that volume exuded the most pure and undiluted patriotism. It is difficult to understand that the author of that volume is the Minister for Finance, a member of this House who has spoken here this morning. Pure and hard materialism is the outstanding characteristic of that speech, but the pure and hard materialism of the speech this morning found no parallel in the volume produced a few years ago. It is clear that the Minister for Finance has abandoned the democratic qualities that characterised his youth. While it is very often said that in advancing years people become more conservative, the progress of the Minister for Finance in that direction has been truly astonishing. It is the merest subterfuge to try to associate the work. at Rhynana with agricultural work. There is no relation whatever between them. There could be no relationship between the type of work being done there at present and the type of work carried on on drainage schemes.

As Deputy Corry said, this is work preparatory to the launching of a State scheme. This is State work, pure and simple, and a wage of 27/- represents the State's conception of the appropriate wages to be paid there. We have often heard recently the old story that you cannot get more out of a pool than you put into it. That argument is always used when the question of wages arises. It is an argument that is always heard when there is a discussion about widows' and orphans' pensions, and questions of that kind. We heard it from people like Deputy Anthony, who has swallowed every protestation he ever made in favour of democracy and a decent standard of living. I repudiate Deputy Anthony's right to interfere in this debate, having regard to the fact that recently he was a member of Cork Corporation, who repudiated the right of the workers employed by the corporation to get a fair standard of wages, and was one of the men who signed the report denying them a hearing. I want to criticise the Minister, but I want to see criticism coming from people who have the right to criticise. I repudiate Deputy Anthony's right to speak on this question at all. The whole position here is disgraceful from the point of view of wages. With regard to wages paid on minor relief schemes, I want to say that the present maximum of 24/- is less than what is paid in certain parts of the country by the previous Government. I know of certain areas where 24/- is paid now where 25/- and 26/- was paid formerly. If that is not evidence of a deliberate attempt to depress wages, there is no use trying to argue with the mentality that refuses to recognise that fact.

I believe there is overwhelming feeling in the Party to which the Parliamentary Secretary belongs against the wage standard of his Department, and I hope that feeling in the Party, which I have no doubt exists, will find its expression either by way of support for this motion, or by way of whatever machinery may be devised for a reconsideration of the position. We heard about the undue strain on the people of the country. What about the people who have to exist within the limit of the wages we are discussing? Must we always regard the question of pounds, shillings and pence as a consideration far exceeding in importance men, women and children in the matter of living and in the standard of wages? If we do, let us be definite about it and let us not pretend sympathy and support for the human needs of the people while disregarding them every time that the opportunity offers. I want to associate myself with this motion, and I want to repudiate the line of attack directed against it as most unworthy, and as definitely evidencing a callous disregard of the human needs of the working people concerned.

Mr. Hogan

At the outset I want to correct a statement which I saw in the newspapers this morning, that I stated that 30/- a week was the lowest amount that should be considered a living wage. What I said last night was that 30/- was the lowest amount that could procure the necessary amount of food to maintain life. I did not characterise it as a living wage. I want to correct that statement now.

What does the Deputy regard as a living wage?

Mr. Hogan

The Minister has the facts and figures and a huge Department of experts. That is his job.

Will the Deputy answer the question?

Mr. Hogan

That is the Minister's job. When he faces up to his job of fixing a living wage I will give him every help I can. Up to the present he has shown no inclination whatever to face up to the problem of fixing a living wage. Neither he nor his colleague, the Minister for Finance, nor any member of the Cabinet has made any attempt to say what is a living wage, or to fix a basis upon which a single man or a man with a family could live.

Can the Deputy even express an opinion?

Mr. Hogan

I am not going to be drawn by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. There is no use in his trying to do so. The Minister may as well drop that attitude at the outset. There is no use in stooping to the level of frivolity in which the Parliamentary Secretary indulged last night. It will not add anything to the Parliamentary Secretary's personal reputation, nor will it enhance the dignity of the office he holds. If the phrases I used in an endeavour to indicate a background for this question please the Parliamentary Secretary he can have these phrases free. There is no copyright claim in them. There will be one characteristic about them, at least, that is not common in the verbal armoury of the Parliamentary Secretary, they express the correct idea. The Parliamentary Secretary said this was not heavy work, and then he proceeded to mention excavating, quarrying, and draining, and on that basis he said that the work was not heavy nor arduous. I want the House to infer from the specification what kind this work is. I say that the work is heavy and arduous, and is much more severe than work on the roads under Clare County Council, or work done by agricultural labourers in the area surrounding the air base construction works.

Heavy excavations would not be done by the men at all. That is done by machines.

Mr. Hogan

Is quarrying or drainage done by machinery? The Parliamentary Secretary said that 27/- per week was the rate that had been paid in that area for years. Therefore, that rate will be continued, and everything that was against the workers' conditions should be continued. That was the programme of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, and it was the accumulation of such activities that brought the Labour Party into the Lobby to vote the Cumann na nGaedheal Party out of office. We objected to such rates when that Party was in office, and we object when the Fianna Fáil Government tries to continue that bad practice. Having come into office, what has become of the Christian social services in connection with Parliamentary institutions about which they spoke? We do not see any of them in the construction of the works at Rhynana. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the workers were satisfied with the payment they were getting. I want to tell him that I had to use whatever influence I have to prevent a demonstration which would convince the Parliamentary Secretary that they are not satisfied with the conditions of employment, or with the rates of wages paid at the air base construction works. There is very clear proof that they are not. I said last night that even the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, who is the political head of the Board of Works, would not have the temerity to suggest that it is because he can find sufficient people to work for 27/-that they are employed. No one would have the temerity to say that. These are the people who stand for Christian administration. The Parliamentary Secretary's statement was that the workers were quite happy and satisfied. If people can be found to take that work, to paraphrase the words of Stuart Mill, that is robbing the poor because they are poor. That is what the Parliamentary Secretary's phrase means, that the poor can be robbed because they are poor; that men are being got at 27/- a week to do this work, and that they are satisfied they are getting more than they would get as unemployment assistance, and are satisfied that they are better off than if they were doing nothing. That is robbing them because they are in that position. These world services are to be built on human need, and on the flesh and blood of the needy workers in the country. It is like what happened in ancient times, when they were under the lash of the slave masters. The Parliamentary Secretary says that I do not speak for the workers in this matter. There are two very noticeable absentees from the Fianna Fáil Benches this morning. My two colleagus in the representation of Clare belonging to the Fianna Fáil Party are not here. If they were here, would they say that I do not speak for the workers in that district? I can tell the Parliamentary Secretary that I addressed at least 300 people in New-market-on-Fergus about a fortnight ago, and said there the same things that I have said here regarding these wages; that I had representations made to me by the workers employed at the air base construction works, and I had to tell them that I did not think it would be a wise course to make a demonstration, such as they suggested they should make because of the conditions there. When a member of the Government visited that area, was a statement of the demands to the workers at the air base put into his hands? Are not these demands based upon the statements I am making here? Did they not bear out the statements I am making and show clearly that I am speaking on behalf of the workers there? I am speaking on behalf of the workers of that district, and on behalf of the workers of Clare. Not alone am I speaking on behalf of the workers, but on behalf of every decent-minded farmer, every decent-minded shopkeeper, and every decent-minded citizen in that constituency. The Parliamentary Secretary twitted us that we are not a big Party. Does he think that truth and justice always march with the big battalions?

Mr. Hogan

We have been told on excellent authority that majority rule is only a rule of order. The Parliamentary Secretary has deliberately ignored all the main arguments I put forward. It does not matter whether I am speaking for the workers or not, whether we are a big Party or not, or whether 27/- per week is the drainage rate paid in the area or not. Several questions that I asked are clamouring for an answer. One of them is: Is it a condition of the agreement that a standard of living is being imposed in the construction of this air base which the Canadian or British navvy would not accept? Is it a condition of that agreement that we are to impose upon our workers here conditions that they would not accept?

There is no agreement about the air base. The Government are building it, and it is under Government control.

Mr. Hogan

Is there anything immoral in paying the county council rate of wages in the area?

Is that what the Deputy considers a standard rate?

Mr. Hogan

Is there anything immoral in paying the North Tipperary County Council rate of wages or the rate of wages paid by the Electricity Supply Board? With regard to the agricultural rate of wages, I demonstrated quite clearly last night, and it has been borne out to-day by several speakers, that the estimate of the agricultural rate in the district, or in the whole county, is not at all correct.

Or in the country.

Mr. Hogan

I gave the position of the agricultural worker in Clare last night—that he gets £26 a year in cash, together with board and lodging and laundry. Does the Parliamentary Secretary, or the Minister for Finance, contend that 27/- per week corresponds to £26 per year, together with board and lodging and laundry in a farmer's house? Can they give any figures to prove or sustain that? Of course, they cannot. On what is the 27/- based? Is it based on the fact that you can get sufficient food, clothing and shelter for a single man for 27/- per week? What food, clothing and shelter are you going to give a man and his wife and family for 27/-per week? It takes some of these people at least 100 hours to get that 27/-. I know of one man who cycled six miles back and forward to get this 27/- and who had to give up the work because he could not keep it up. I know people who come home with 19/-, after endeavouring to earn this miserable 27/-, because of broken time. The Government have made no attempt to answer the case put up. The Parliamentary Secretary last night indulged in a lot of debating society tactics. He treated us to a low standard of frivolity. It is not frivolity for these people. The offer of a wager of £500 as to the conditions of employment and the rate of wages in Rhynana shows the Parliamentary Secretary's outlook on the matter.

It was on a question of fact.

Mr. Hogan

Who is to get £500?

You—or any other sum you like.

Is there no limit?

The national debt.

Mr. Hogan

It shows the Parliamentary Secretary's outlook on the entire matter. The facts I have put before the Dáil are as inexorable as the laws of arithmetic and he cannot conjure them out of existence. He has not answered the case put up. I hope his own Deputies will answer him, and answer him effectively, in the lobbies.

I deny again the statement made by the Deputy that there is any man at 27/- per week, as far as I know, working up to his waist in water.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 51; Níl, 62.

  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Curran, Richard.
  • Daly, Patrick.
  • Davin, William.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Desmond, William.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
  • Dolan, James Nicholas.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Finaly, John.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Holohan, Richard.
  • Keating, John.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • MacDermot, Frank.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Minch, Sydney B.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Morrissy, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Neill, Eamonn.
  • O'Reilly, John Joseph.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Redmond, Bridget Mary.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Rice, Vincent.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Rogers, Patrick James.
  • Rowlette, Robert James.
  • Wall, Nicholas.

Níl

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Brain.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • Corbett, Edmond.
  • Corkery, Daniel.
  • Corry, Martin John.
  • Crowley, Timothy.
  • Daly, Denis.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Doherty, Hugh.
  • Flinn, Hugo. V.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Pearse, Margaret Mary.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Geoghegan, James.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Good, John.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Hales, Thomas.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Jordan, Stephen.
  • Keely, Séamus P.
  • Kehoe, Patrick.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
  • Kilory, Michael.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
  • Neilan, Martin.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Keyes and Corish; Níl: Deputies Little and Smith.
Motion declared lost.
Top
Share