Agricultural Wages (Amendment) Bill, 1945—Second Stage.

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The Agricultural Wages Act, 1936, provided for the fixing of minimum rates of wages for agricultural workers, made it an offence for an agricultural employer to pay an agricultural worker less than the minimum rate, and gave the agricultural worker (or an officer of the Agricultural Wages Board acting on his behalf) power to recover by civil proceedings any sums due to him on account of payment of wages at less than the appropriate minimum rate. The Act did not, however, fix any limit to the period in respect of which such arrears of wages could be recovered, and workers may, therefore, at present bring proceedings dating back to the year in which the Act came into operation. In time it would be possible to bring claims extending over 20 years at which point the statute of limitations would apply. The experience of my Department and of the Agricultural Wages Board has shown that the absence of such a limit is giving rise to serious abuses. The principal aim of the Bill is to remove these abuses in the interests both of employers and workers alike.

I may now refer to the sections. Section I deals with contracts of employment. The Agricultural Wages (Minimum Rates) Orders made by the Agricultural Wages Board fixing minimum rates of wages for agricultural workers distinguish between two kinds of contracts of employment: (1) contracts of employment for a period of less than five months, and (2) contracts of employment for a period of five months duration and upwards. In the case of the first, the minimum rates of wages are fixed on the basis of a week of 54 hours, and, in the case of the second, on a monthly basis. The definition of "a wages period" in Section 1 of the Bill is intended to conform with this practice of the board in fixing minimum rates, and also to facilitate the calculation of the two-year limitation periods for recovery of wages which is provided for in Sections 3 and 4 of the Bill.

Section 2 deals with the question of determining whether a worker is an agricultural worker or an employer an agricultural employer. Under the 1936 Act, these are matters for decision by the Minister. In that connection difficult legal points have often arisen in practice. For a long time I have thought these were not proper questions for the Minister to decide. As a matter of fact, I having decided whether a person was an agricultural worker or not, the court must often also decide whether the work arose out of a contract or not. It is very involved at the moment and I think it would be very much more appropriate if it were left to the court to decide whether a person was or was not an agricultural employer or an agricultural worker. That is provided by Section 2.

Section 3 deals with summary proceedings. Where there are summary proceedings, as distinct from civil proceedings, for an offence under the Act, the court may award the wages due as well as dealing with the offence. That is sometimes done and this section was put in to limit the period in that case to two years.

Section 4 may be regarded as the main section of this Bill. It limits to two years the arrears of wages that can be recovered in civil proceedings and it also limits the time within which application may be made to the court to two years from the end of the period of employment.

These provisions are being introduced at the instance of the Agricultural Wages Board. Some considerable time ago, the Agricultural Wages Board passed a resolution asking me to have the Act amended accordingly. They had had the question discussed at the five area committees. These committees, as Deputies are aware, are composed of an equal number of employers and employees and all the committees and the Board recommended unanimously that this amendment should be made. It is not contended that an employer should get away with doing what would be regarded as illegal under the Act, but he can be dealt with summarily for the offence and, even after this Bill is passed, he will, presumably, be compelled to pay whatever wages were due for a period of two years. The amendment is proposed because there has been a certain amount of dissatisfaction amongst employees as well as employers. I think every Deputy will realise that if a man is prepared to hire with a farmer at less than the minimum wage, that has a very depressing effect on wages in general in the area and it holds out the temptation to employers in that area to try to get men at less than the minimum wage. The employee who is willing to do this has in mind, when his employment ceases, to go to court and get the arrears. It would be much better if that were discouraged and that, as far as possible, we should see to it that employees insist on getting the proper wage and that employers are compelled to pay the proper wage.

In the case of any person who has a genuine grievance, let us say, an employee who has made a mistake about the wages he should be paid or who, by reason of a temporary depression in a given area, accepts work at lower than the minimum wage, and who becomes dissatisfied or who changes his mind and regrets having done so, it is considered that two years is quite sufficient to give him to make up his mind to go to court and get what is due to him. There seems to me to be no good reason for allowing him to continue longer than two years taking less than the proper wage and then having the right to go to court to get the arrears.

The provisions of Section 3 and Section 4 are not in any way retrospective and do not apply to any case that is being brought before the court or that may be brought before the court before the passing of this Bill.

Section 5 deals with another matter. It was provided in the Act that application could be made to the Board for sanction for less than the minimum wage if the employee was believed to be unsound either mentally or physically. There was a certain number of applications of this kind. The great majority of them were granted by the Board. Some were refused.

The number of cases was comparatively very small and a number of employers who were afterwards brought before the court claimed that the employee was not capable of doing a hard day's work and when it was pointed out to them that they could have applied to the Agricultural Wages Board to pay less than the minimum wage they claimed that they did not know of the provision. It is possible that some employers did not know and possibly some employees did not know. This is to give the court the right, after full investigation, to decide that an employee was not physically or mentally fit and where that is pleaded, if the plea is a just plea, they may, in fact, apply Section 18 of the Principal Act retrospectively, that is to say, they may find that the person was unsound either mentally or physically.

Deputies may not be aware of some of the cases that were brought under this Act, and I think if they were, they would agree that something should be done. Cases were brought before me to decide whether the work was agricultural or not. I may mention one or two of these cases. One was a case brought about two years ago of an employee who had been working with an employer for something like six years. The inspector who investigated the case reported that the worker was aged 70 years, rather broken down in physique and seemed deformed; was obviously unable to do really heavy work. It appears he was taken in by the employer, being a friend of the family, on his discharge from hospital, in 1937. He was kept and fed and so on, and in return for that he did a certain amount of work around the place, including some agricultural work. He got a certain amount of pocket money as well as being kept. The employer and he had a falling-out and he went to court and claimed the full arrears of wages.

Another case was that of a deaf mute who was working with an employer for some years at less than the minimum wage. He left that employer and went to work with another. The second employer was more conversant with the law and told him that he would take him on if he would agree to an application being made to the Wages Board for exemption. The employee agreed and the board gave the exemption because they considered he was not physically fit for hard work. The employee then understood that the previous employer, not having asked for exemption, was liable for the full wages and he applied for the amount—over £200—which was due to him in respect of the time he was working for the previous employer.

I do not wish to weary the House by giving a lot of cases. I am giving a couple of instances which show that great injustice can be done as the Act stands. I think there is certainly a case for the amendment I am proposing. The principal amendment there is that the employee can claim only two years' arrears of wages and must put in his claim within two years from the time he leaves the employment.

The other amendments are more or less incidental. They concern the transfer of the function of determining whether work is agricultural or not from the Minister to the court, which I believe to be desirable, and the point about bringing the period of employment into line with the present practice, and they are of no great importance.

Mr. Hughes

We have no objection to the Bill and I think the Minister has given good grounds for the necessity to amend the Agricultural Wages Act of 1936. The Minister is deleting Section 2 (2) of the Principal Act, which is a desirable deletion, as it was not wise to leave the decision to the Minister. The proper place to have the decision made is the court, and that will be the position on the repeal of Section 2 (2) of the Principal Act.

In Section 4 it is provided that an officer of the board may act for the individual—I think that was in the Principal Act, too, and I see no reason to object to it. I agree with the Minister that it is necessary to have a statutory limit to the period of claim and that it is unfair to leave it wide open to a man to claim over a long period. This will have the effect of compelling an individual who has a claim to introduce proceedings within the statutory period laid down. The Minister is right in pointing out that some men, knowing that the protection was there in the law, were quite satisfied to hire with individual farmers and work at a wage below the fixed minimum wage for a long period. It had a bad effect in the district, as it became known that some people were employing labourers at less than the minimum wage and I have no doubt it tended to depress wages. The arguments the Minister has advanced on that point should convince any Deputy as to the desirability of the amendment. The period of two years after the determination of employment is quite satisfactory.

Under Section 5, the court can decide as to the physical or mental capacity of an individual and may make it retrospective so far as the employment of an individual over a period of years is concerned, where an employer was in ignorance of the provisions of the Act. I do not see any objection to it. The various amendments in the Bill are useful and will help to remove the anomalies which existed in the Principal Act.

Mr. P.J. Fogarty

I listened to the Minister very carefully on the Second Reading and took particular notice of his remarks regarding the definition of an agricultural labourer. It strikes me as extraordinary that, in spite of various representations which have been made to him from time to time on this point, he has always evaded the question of gardeners. If a gardener is not an agricultural worker, I do not know how I could describe him. If he applies to proceed to England for employment, he cannot go, as he comes under the definition of an agricultural worker or someone who knows something about turf. Any ordinary person realises that a gardener is engaged in the production of food and, therefore, he comes within the ambit of an agricultural worker. The Minister could make an amendment in this Bill, bringing gardeners within the scope of the Agricultural Wages Act. Gardeners should be entitled to the increases given to agricultural workers by the Wages Board since it was set up. Farmers generally have applied those increases. I represent a constituency where the farming community is paying more to the agricultural workers than the minimum wages laid down by the board. I appeal to the Minister to consider this question of gardeners and make provision in the Bill to bring them within the Principal Act.

I know there are several types of gardeners attached to the big estates of titled people and who might be growing roses or tulips. At the same time, you will always find they are growing tomatoes, too, and that their whole occupation is not confined to roses and tulips. Even so, there is a fairly good market for roses and tulips. Farmers generally cannot afford to indulge in growing them and, unfortunately, we have to get men to come from Holland and Belgium to make a fortune growing roses and tulips here, as I have seen in my constituency at Rush, where they find it far more remunerative than growing wheat or potatoes. Nevertheless, it will be found that 99 per cent. of the gardeners generally deal with the growing of small vegetables, beet, lettuce and celery. These vegetables keep the Dublin market going and it is rather unfair that they should not come within this Bill. It is rather difficult to bring it in, as there are various grades: there are first-class men and then others who may describe themselves as gardeners but who really are only handy labourers. The Minister will agree that there are many wages disputes going on at the moment, as the agricultural worker is the worst paid worker in the country to-day, without any doubt whatsoever. I see them on the Dublin road, coming in to the Dublin market. They get home in the evening time, after delivering cabbage, and I have often heard them boasting of the price it fetched—some fabulous price like £8 or £9 or even up to £13 or £14 a load. I hear of potatoes going at £28 and £24 a ton; but the agricultural worker who has to bring the load to the market just goes back to the farm and maybe loads up again for the next day.

The Agricultural Wages Act, which the Minister brought in, was generally appreciated by the agricultural worker, but one thing which was not appreciated was the laying down of a "minimum" wage. It should be emphasised that that was a minimum, provided to ensure that the worker would not get less and that it was a matter for the farmer to pay considerably more, if he so desired. Unfortunately, that is used by the employers to say: "We will pay you the Government wage". That is a situation that the Department of Agriculture should clean up. The farmers who employ these men will know that this wage is fixed and the workers themselves will know that they should not be employed at a lesser wage. The farmer is entitled to give the worker a higher wage if he thinks he is worth it. I know farmers who have good men working for them and they are quite prepared to pay them a good wage.

I should like to see the minimum wage fixed at a higher level. It is one reason why you have not so many agricultural workers. Even the Minister's statistics have shown that, notwithstanding increased tillage, there are fewer agricultural workers. The Minister may say that is due to the use of machinery. Of course, the farmers are entitled to get a big amount of their tillage done by contract with the people who have tractors, binders, corn drills, ploughs, etc. If you are to encourage people to work on the land the best inducement is to improve conditions. We seldom hear of a "young" farmer. Even if a farmer is only 18 years of age, he is described as an "old" farmer. I have asked many people for an explanation of that, but it is difficult to find one. Similarly, you seldom hear of a "small" rat. No matter how small the animal may be, it is always described as a "big" rat. The farmer's life is a tough one and he really earns his money. The agricultural worker should get a little more consideration.

The Minister should consider how best to improve agricultural conditions and encourage men to work on the land. A great deal has been done by the Department in the matter of reviving ploughing competitions. In that way much has been done to revive interest in agricultural work. We should endeavour to improve the conditions of the farmer and give him better opportunities of earning a decent livelihood. I know the conditions of the farm labourers and I know the conditions under which builders' labourers and tradesmen generally carry on their work. The farm labourer is often depressed when he reads of the trade disputes about conditions that he would be glad to work under. Many farm labourers would be delighted to work under the conditions that dissatisfy tradesmen.

Why should not farm labourers get a week's holidays with pay? The ordinary farmer fills up a form and mentions the men who are employed by him during the year. He sets out whether they have worked constantly and also gives the number of days worked, all with the object of getting an abatement of rates. If he complies with the regulations he gets certain allowances. Why should not some scheme be devised so that farm labourers will get holidays with pay? I believe 99 per cent. of the farmers will not object. Other workers are entitled to holidays with pay. The exception is the farm labourer. He gets the Catholic holidays but not the bank holidays. I think the Minister's Department could prepare some scheme so that farm labourers will get reasonable consideration as regards their holidays.

There are a good many members of the farming community in the Government Party and surely the Minister, who is himself a farmer, could have a consultation with them? I would not agree to a consultation with outside organisations or members of the Opposition Party. The Minister should consult the farmer members of the Government Party to see if something could be done to provide a week's holiday with pay for farm labourers. They will not be able to look forward to a trip to Lisdoonvarna or Ballybunion, but they can have a week's rest and they might be able to do something in their own homes or gardens that will be of benefit to themselves and their families.

I heard the Minister talking about inspectors in connection with the minimum wage. I have never seen one of the inspectors connected with the Agricultural Wages Board. The only inspectors one can hear of are those who follow old age pensioners to see what means they have. If they have a hen laying, the inspectors will find out, but they seldom find out if a man is being paid an unreasonably low wage. If a woman pays a penny or two too much for tea, the inspectors will find that out, but I have never known them to inquire closely into farm workers' wages. They will enter the house of a woman who tries to keep her place comfortable and cosy, and they open the presses to see what she has.

I heard the story of an inspector who had a chat with a farmer. The farmer told him he had three men working on the land; he was paying two of them wages, but the third fellow was getting about 10/- a week, an odd ounce of tobacco, and possibly a "pint." The inspector was quite annoyed, and immediately asked to see the man. "Here I am," said the farmer, "it is myself I am talking about. That is all I get."

The provision in the Bill about certain people being exempted from getting the trade union wage is a very bad one. I know rural areas in Co. Dublin where some of the people described by the Minister are working and I am certain they are the hardest workers. Some of these unfortunate fellows work from morning till night. They may be mentally deficient and that factor is played upon. They are working night and day and even on Sundays. I do not think anyone should be allowed to avail of that type of provision. If a person is mentally deficient it does not mean that he does not work hard. Such persons do not realise their rights. Some of these men may be taken out of institutions. They work from day-break till dark and also on Sundays. This Bill should not give employers an opportunity to apply for exemption in the case of workers of that type.

I thought the Minister would give some definition of a gardener and I had hopes that he would introduce a provision to give farm workers holidays with pay. Employers and employees should be made aware that there is a definite minimum wage below which it is not right for them to go. I do not know how this thing may be criticised by the Labour Party, but the workers have at least this guarantee, that by law they are entitled to a certain wage. It should be brought home to the worker and the employer that that is the minimum wage and employers are entitled, if they so desire, to pay their workers more, and that the farmer cannot say: "I am giving you the Government wage and that is all I can do". Some of these workers think that it would be an offence if they were given a higher wage.

There is another matter in connection with the wages of workers engaged in threshing, but I do not know the exact position in this regard, or whether the Agricultural Wages Board has any authority in the matter. I know that they fix the amount to be paid per day for the machines and that the machines are subject to inspection by the Department's inspectors, but I do not know what the position is with regard to the wages of the workers. It is really only casual work, but, not knowing the exact position, I do not intend to deal with it. Finally, I suggest to the Minister that he should bring the wages boards for the various areas together more often so that the situation as it exists in each area may be dealt with.

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

In dealing with the problem of fixation of wages in any industry, whether agriculture or other industry, two lines of approach along which progress can be made are available. One is the line of trade union organisation and activity and the other is legislation. So far as the majority of industrial and commercial workers are concerned, more especially in this country, the line of activity along trade union organisation has brought them good results, but, even in industry and commerce, there are certain trades which, because of their peculiar characteristics, have rendered themselves almost impervious to the line of development pursued by the working-class movement, and, as in industry and commerce we have that picture, so also have we it in agriculture.

The difficulties which face any trade union or the trade union movement as a whole in this country in trying to do for agricultural workers what they have done for industrial and commercial workers are not only manifest to anybody who knows the rural areas but constitute a burning problem for those who are particularly and keenly interested in the trade union movement, and while Deputy Fogarty, possibly with a good deal of correctness, takes all credit to his Party for having introduced the 1936 Act which fixed minimum wages, there is a history behind it, and it is the history of the maintenance and the development at all times of the demand of industrial and commercial workers in the cities and of the trade union movement for protection and better treatment for their brothers in rural communities on the basis of their recognition as human beings.

If the Fianna Fáil Party did, in 1936, give heed to that demand and introduce the measure of that year, they were only doing something which was very much belated. But even with the fixation of that minimum rate, we still had the position in 1939 in which, in the area immediately adjacent to the capital, the weekly rate of wages of the agricultural worker was 36/- a week. That in itself emphasises the point made by Deputy Fogarty that here we are dealing with the fixation of minimum conditions, and unfortunately, when we deal with conditions of employment through legislation, what we get are minimum and average conditions, and not minimum and maximum conditions, because what is laid down as a minimum inevitably becomes the average, and, with certain exceptions, the maximum, for that class of work.

It is all very well to tell farmers that they are only legally bound to pay a certain minimum rate and that there is no legal prohibition, no moral obstacle in their path and no device of any kind which prevents them from giving greater recognition to their labourers and paying a more reasonable wage. The experience both of labourers and of those who interest themselves in the conditions of agricultural labourers is that the farmer who recognises the value given to him by his agricultural labourer by giving something over and above the legal rate is an exception —and we should give credit to him. Not only have we got the mass of the farmers sticking rigidly in the same way as the average industrial or commercial employer sticks in the main to the minimum rates fixed by trade boards in industries and trades, but we have also the other class of farmer who is not even prepared to recognise the obligation imposed on him by the law of the country.

I should have thought that after eight years' experience of the working of the Act when we had an amending Bill an effort would have been made to get rid of the defects and to improve the original Act from the point of view of the purpose and spirit of that Act. The purpose and spirit of the Act was to benefit the agricultural labourer and not to hold him up to ridicule as was done by the Minister this evening but to make the Act more effective in dealing with the farmer who is breaking the law, who as the Minister pointed out, is taking advantage of his fellow farmers, and not only of the labourer he employs, who is not only doing harm to the labourer but to the whole industry of agriculture, because he continues to keep tacked on to the farmers the reputation of seeking to acquire for themselves improved conditions in the shape of prices, credits and facilities, while at the same time refusing to recognise the claims of the labourers. I do not think that is the actual position in regard to the great mass of the farmers. They are in the same difficult position as their labourers, but one black sheep in a district can very often blacken the reputation of the decent and reputable men working around him. Instead of trying to strengthen the Act so as to protect not only the agricultural labourer as such, but the decent farmer, we propose to take away some of the weapons which were provided in the original Act. The suggestion of the Minister that the Bill should be accepted by the House and that summary proceedings for the recovery of wages should be limited to two years is an outrage. I think the reasons the Minister advanced in that regard are even more outrageous. Later in the course of his case in support of the Bill the Minister referred to Section 5 and to the possibility that farmers might not know the law and the legal facilities provided for them in the 1936 Act in regard to obtaining permits from incapacitated workers.

If the farmer is to be assisted because he possibly does not know the law surely there is a thousand times a stronger argument for assisting the labourer who may be in ignorance of the law. The Minister's case is that labourer who take up employment with a farmer under the minimum rate not only tend to depress conditions in the particular district but do it deliberately, knowing that at any time, without limitation, if their employment ends they can have recourse to the courts. Agreed that that is objectionable and I shall be with the Minister in dealing with any individual who would be a party to that practice. But if that is the case, how much more so should we deal with the farmer who is prepared to take advantage of that individual, and instead of dealing with him we are going to limit his penalties first of all to a very nominal fine—if you look at the records given to the House some months ago you will see how nominal the fines are in regard to breaches of the Act—and secondly, we are going to limit the recovery of wages to two years. What is the need for that limitation? The Minister has mentioned one or two cases. He has told us that the Agricultural Wages Board and the district committees have unanimously made this recommendation. I have no doubt; I think the board could hardly do anything else in view of their record. If you go back and read the figures given by the Minister in regard to the period since the Act came into operation in 1937—the cases where there were breaches of the Act, the proceedings taken and the fines imposed—one amazing fact stands out, and that is, that at a time when agriculture in this country as a whole entered upon, if you like, the boom period of the war, and at no other time within 20 or 25 years were the farmers generally in a better position to comply with the requirements of the Act, the inspection system collapsed. The inspectors were taken away from the board. I do not blame the board. The inspectors were taken away and put on certain other duties, and so far as enforcement of the Act was concerned—and an Act that is not enforced is not of very much value—that particular side of the activities of the board practically came to a standstill.

It might be argued that those inspectors, men skilled in agriculture, were required for other duties, but the ordinary visits to farmers, the inquiries as to wages paid, and the checking up of the enforcement of the provisions of the Act, once there was a determination that the individual was an agricultural labourer, did not require any highly skilled knowledge. It only required a certain determination that the persons for whom the Act was devised would get the benefit of it, and that those who were guilty of breaches of the Act would be dealt with. So far as the limitation of the period of recovery to two years is concerned, I personally feel, and I think the same can be said of all those on these benches, that I cannot agree to it. I cannot see any reason why the farm labourer should not be given the same facilities as any other person to whom a commercial debt is owed. The ordinary trader gets the protection of the Statute of Limitations. He has more experience; he is capable of dealing with his business; in most cases he is a literate man who reads the papers and keeps himself informed as to the law and its requirements. If he is to be allowed a period of seven years in which to protect himself, surely the agricultural labourer, living possibly in the backward parts of the more outlying counties, very often semi-illiterate, working under the pressure of the economic and physical conditions under which he is forced to live, and perhaps not having the opportunity of reading a paper for months at a time, should be given every facility and every protection, instead of limiting the period of recovery. I should prefer to see the Minister coming in here and seeking powers to impose heavier and more severe fines in order to make the original Act more effective. According to the figures which the Minister gave to the House, the fines imposed were negligible, a matter of £5 or £6 or £10 for offences running in certain cases, as he said himself, over a period of two years.

With regard to the other proposal which the Minister is embodying in this Bill, the change of powers in connection with the determination of an agricultural labourer, I do not think we have any great quarrel with that. We recognise and know from experience the difficulties that have arisen not only in regard to agricultural labourers but other classes of workers who get determinations from the courts, and the subsequent difficulties that arose when the cases were pursued through the legal channels. So far as gardeners are concerned, I think there is already in the Bill a certain definition in regard to agriculture as a whole where it refers to market gardeners, and that in itself would give a certain amount of direction as to whether the gardeners referred to by Deputy Fogarty could be brought within the scope of the Bill. The other type of gardener—the type to which Deputy Fogarty was perhaps really referring—is the man working inside the city, the man working for casual days, and getting 5/-, 6/-, 7/- or 8/-. Very often he gets only three or four days' work a week. For a wage of perhaps 36/- to 50/- he provides highly skilled labour. He has to maintain a family on a wage which in many cases in the city is paid to a worker of 18 or 19 years in other occupations. I do not know how they can be given protection. I do not think they can get it through the form of machinery we have now. That is the type of gardener who requires consideration more than the market gardeners to whom Deputy Fogarty has referred, and who, as far as I know, especially in the area to which he referred, enjoy the benefits of the 1936 Act.

The section proposing that a change should be made in regard to the securing of permits to employ incapacitated workers below the minimum wage is also objectionable. If there has been such a small number of cases, then it is quite clear that no great burden of work has been created, and that the machinery in general functioned fairly well. I do think it is an objectionable practice to come in to court after an offence has been committed, and urge that a particular worker was incapacitated for one reason or another.

It seems to me to be open to many grave abuses. From experience of the attitude of courts in assessing the incapacitation of workers, I can see many grave difficulties arising when it comes to a question of deciding whether a particular worker who was under-paid was at that particular time incapacitated to the extent represented by the wage paid. I think it would be far better to leave the section as it is in the original Act and place the onus on the employer to obtain a permit in advance, and to have the position fully examined by competent and skilled inspectors of the board. Then if they are satisfied they can give the necessary permission to employ the particular individual in question.

So far as the Bill as a whole is concerned, it seems to me that it can be summed up as it was by the Minister when he said that the main purpose of this section is to incorporate this limitation to a two years' period. We feel that no case has been made to justify that. It is regrettable that, instead of an amending Bill being brought in to remedy any difficulties which may have become apparent in the 1936 Act, our expression of sympathy with the agricultural labourers, after five years of strenuous circumstances in this country—and that sympathy will probably be again extended to them by the Minister during the coming season—is to suggest that they are to blame; that they are trying to take advantage of laws made for their protection; that they are willing to allow themselves to be used as tools by unscrupulous employers, and that, therefore, we are going to limit the protection we will give them to a period of two years. I do not think that is an advance. I think it would be far better if we looked at the position from the point of view of seeing what defects in the original Act may be remedied, and from the point of view referred to by Deputy Fogarty— seeing whether it is possible in 1945 to give to those men and women engaged as wage earners on the land that annual holiday of at least one week which we have given to so many different sections of industrial, commercial and transport workers. All of us are aware that large sections of workers are now looking for something more. I think it is becoming recognised that, under modern conditions, a period of a week for recuperation purposes is not sufficient for workers.

Surely if the industrial organised workers are looking forward to a further improvement in their conditions, we can give to these, if you like, outcasts who have nobody to speak for them, what the industrial workers are already starting to leave behind them, namely, a week's holidays with pay. The Minister will possibly argue that that is a matter for another Department and should be dealt with under other Acts. In my opinion it would be quite feasible, by amending the 1936 Act, to make it possible for the board so to arrange their schedule of wages as to afford these men that week's holiday with pay.

Two other points arise. The first is that if we are to have machinery for the fixation of wages, and if the results of its working are to be accepted by all sections engaged in the industry and by the public generally, as being fair and equitable, then I suggest it should be fully representative. It is not so at present. The Minister has power under the Bill to determine the representative character of the people he invites to sit on boards or committees. I suggest to him that he should accept, as a matter of equity, that where there is a Trade Union organisation, or the claim that there is one, he should investigate that claim, and if he is satisfied on investigation that the claim is substantiated, he should then afford the Trade Union organisation an opportunity of submitting names of representatives to act on the Committee or Central Board. Recently, that was done, but unfortunately the names submitted by the Trade Union organisation were not considered. I do not want to go into that now.

I think the Minister does recognise that in any system of wage fixation, conciliation or negotiation, in which two parties are concerned, both sides should be represented in the fullest possible manner, and that where there is to any extent an effective trade union organisation in the district—I am not now suggesting a national organisation—he should accept its nominations. In that way the representatives put forward by a trade union organisation will be of a more representative character and will be able to speak with more authority on committees and boards than an individual who may be accepted by the Minister because in his opinion that individual represents the workers generally in an area.

Deputy Fogarty, when speaking of trade union organisation, referred to the fact that certain workers in the city are now seeking to improve conditions with which agricultural workers would be highly satisfied if they could obtain them. May I suggest that nobody knows better than the Deputy that whatever little improvement agricultural workers in his constituency have obtained in the last 12 months was brought about because of the stand which industrial workers in the city were prepared to make on their behalf? Right down the years, any effort that has been made to give to agricultural workers the possibility of independence and strength to improve their conditions had its origin first in the ranks of industrial workers. They took upon themselves the initial burden in that regard. The pity is that, at the present time, we have not a wider organisation to speak for agricultural workers, so that they would be able to voice in a more effective way, and on a national basis, their claims to consideration. If they were able to do that in an effective way, I am sure they would, as I have done, protest against the type of amending Bill that has been put before us, and would express their regret that the Minister has shown his sympathy with agricultural workers in such an unfortunate way.

Mr. Cogan

While Deputies in general will accept the Bill as an improvement on the Principal Act, it will at the same time be generally agreed that the measure is in keeping with very much of the legislation that passes through this House. It is merely an attempt to patch patches. The original Act represented a sort of compromise. It did not set out to provide for the agricultural worker what is regarded as a fair wage, but rather tried to establish some kind of adjustment as between what the worker needed and what the farmer could pay. It was never a very satisfactory compromise.

In so far as this Bill seeks to limit the period with in which arrears may be claimed or recovered, I think it is satisfactory. There is no analogy whatever between arrears of agricultural wages due and ordinary shop debts which are covered by the limitation of the seven year period. Ordinary shop debts are the result of a contract entered into between a merchant and a buyer, and the merchant is quite entitled to recover the full amount of the price set out in the contract. Here, however, we have a contract entered into between the worker and his employer. At the time it is entered into it appears to both parties to be fair and reasonable, but afterwards it is found to be contrary to the law. I think that, in matter of that kind, it is highly dangerous to allow a long period to elapse. In the first place, as the Minister has pointed out, you might have in one area a number of workers working below the fixed rate for a very long period. That would have a bad effect on wages generally. Then there is the more serious feature that the agricultural employer is frequently a man of very limited resources, and he may find himself up against a claim which he is absolutely unable to meet. Generally speaking, the resources of agricultural employers are much smaller, and much more limited than the resources of industrial or commercial employers. For that reason they are not able to meet substantial claims stretching over a very considerable number of years.

That adds very much to the risks and hazards which farmers have to meet in the ordinary course of their occupation — if they are to find themselves liable for substantial claims being made against them over a considerable period of years. We all know the big risks which farmers have to take in regard to stock and the weather. This summer will have proved that to anyone not already aware of it. In addition, farmers are up against very substantial risks in regard to workmen's compensation and other matters. All these things tend to discourage the employment of men on the land.

Deputy Fogarty referred to the fact that the Fianna Fáil Party was the first Party that gave protection to the agricultural workers in regard to wages. He forgot to mention, however, that this Government had not given complete protection to them inasmuch as a very large percentage of workers have been driven off the land. You have far fewer agricultural workers upon the land now than you had when agricultural wages were first fixed. In as far as the Bill seeks to remove certain defects in the original Act it is to be welcomed but it does not approach the whole question of remuneration of the agricultural worker and fair play for the agricultural employer on a reasonable basis. There is only one reasonable basis if the State is to interfere at all in the matter of remuneration of workers, and that is, to base the remuneration on the cost of living to the worker and to follow that out to its logical conclusion by ensuring that the agricultural employer should get a price for his produce that will cover those wages.

The original Act and this amending Bill are merely tinkering with the problem. There are two definite, clearcut lines of approach to the question of the remuneration of the agricultural worker and of the farmer. Either the State must leave matters entirely alone and let the farmer make his own arrangements with the worker and let the prices of the farmers' produce be governed by the ordinary law of supply and demand or, alternatively, the State may interfere and fix a reasonable wage for the worker and, following that out to its logical conclusion, fix a reasonable price for the produce of the farmer based on those wages.

I am prepared to recommend the second course. I maintain, definitely, that a system of fixing wages for the agricultural worker while affording no protection whatever to the agricultural employer in regard to prices is not an equitable system and, as it has worked out, is merely a sort of compromise. We have the board fixing wages, not on the basis of what they consider a reasonable wage in accordance with the cost of living and in accordance with the importance and equality of the agricultural labourers' work, but on the basis of a compromise as between what the worker needs and what the farmer can pay. Compromises in matters of this kind are hardly ever satisfactory.

Deputy Fogarty made one remark to which I would like to refer. He said he has never heard a farmer described as anything but an "ould farmer." It ought to convince Deputy Fogarty that there is a superiority complex amongst the non-agricultural population in regard to farmers generally when they speak of the farmer with contempt, as is implied in that term. I think that superiority complex is due mainly to the fact that farmers have never been adequately remunerated and therefore have never been in a position adequately to remunerate their dependents, whether they be members of their own family or their employees.

Mr. Dillon

I do not think it would be relevant to this Bill to pursue Deputy Cogan's inquiry into fixed prices——

An Ceann Comhairle

No.

Mr. Dillon

——in relation to wages. I cannot, however, forbear to invite Deputy Cogan, when he contemplates a scheme of fixed prices, to dwell on the exportable surplus and to suggest methods to Dáil Éireann, on some suitable occasion, as to how prices can be fixed for that exportable surplus, which must be sold in the British market because there is no other market in which we can sell it. Deputy Cogan says there is no analogy between shop debts and wages. I am entirely in agreement with Deputy Cogan there, but the inference drawn by Deputy Cogan from that absence of analogy is far different from the inference that I would draw. A merchant makes a contract of sale with his customer. If he does not want to make that contract there is no reason why he should; he can hang up a notice in the shop, "no credit given", and trade on a cash basis. If he elects, for his own reasons, to give credit and fails to collect it within a reasonable time, he cannot expect the whole process of law in this country to be held up waiting for him to make up his mind to recover his debts from his customer.

When I was a child and when the Minister was a child and when Deputy Cogan was a child, I am sure he and I and the Minister had recourse to the penny catechism. There I learned of the Seven Deadly Sins, the Ten Commandments, the Precepts of the Church and the sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance. If my memory serves me well, one of the sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance is depriving the labourer of his hire. I may be a very simple creature, but when I read that in the penny catechism I believed it. I still believe it. I believe that an employer who knowingly withholds from his employee the wages to which the employee is entitled is guilty of mortal sin and is bound to restitution. I do not care whether the debt is due for a year, or six years or 16 years, if he knowingly withholds it, he is bound to pay it back, if his resources permit him to do so, before he can get absolution for his sin. That is what I was brought up to believe and, so far as I know, that is the law of God. There is that remarkable distinction between shop debts and the kind of debts that are associated with a labourer's hire. I may be wrong, but that is my understanding of the situation.

If a farmer hires a labourer, it is common knowledge to us all that in the vast majority of cases, the labourer is looking for a job. There are exceptional circumstances when there are more employers than labourers, but in the vast majority of cases there are more labourers than there are employers. If an employer, in those circumstances, having three or four men looking for one job, finds one of them so straitened that he is prepared to say: "If the fixed wages are 42/-, I will take £2 to get the job," and the farmer, in pursuit of that agreement, hires the man and gives him 2/- a week less than the man is entitled to under the law it seems to me that, whether that deed was done one year, five years, ten years or 40 years ago, there is a solemn obligation on that farmer to find the man from whom he stole the 2/-, or his descendants, or the next nearest party he can find, and restore what he stole.

In those circumstances why should we in this House lift off the farmer who has stolen from his labourer part of his wages weekly the obligation to pay back what he stole under due process of law? Deputy Costello was here a few moments ago and, I think, he confirmed me in saying that the law of this land requires that if a trustee defrauds his cestui que trust it does not matter how long ago that took place, the Courts of Equity will compel the trustee to put right his breach of trust in favour of his cestui que trust and refuse to give the trustee the benefit of any statute of limitations. His special undertaking to deal justly —uberrima fides is the phrase — with his cestui que trust is recognised and that duty of uberrima fides in the case of a trustee is deemed to admit of no claim to protection from the passage of time. Is not the employer, in some sense a trustee of the goods he holds, be it land or property of any kind, obliged to deal justly with a man who has worked for him?

I do not agree with Deputy Larkin when he says that Section 5 is a bad section. I think Section 5 of this Bill is a good section, provided that Section 4 be not in the Bill. A case could arise where a delicate or disabled man would come to a farmer and say: "I will drive the cattle in at night, and help about the place night and day, as I am not able to do the average heavy work of an ordinary labouring man, and if I get £1 a week and my meals it will be better to me than to be on the rates." I can well understand a neighbouring farmer saying that that man would be welcome on those terms, and there would be no sense of obligation on either side. There would be the readiness of such a disabled man to knock about in the evening time, when the ordinary labourers had gone home, and it may be a convenience to a farmer who might want to go to town and wish to have some dependable person about the house in the evening. I can well imagine the situation arising, in the case of a dispute, where such a labourer might go into court and dishonestly say that he had entered into a contract with that farmer and now claimed to recover ten years' arrears.

All of us who know the country are aware that not infrequently there is about a farmer's house maybe a dummy or a disabled individual who for years has been an indetermined retainer. Such a person, if malicious, might institute proceedings against a perfectly bona fide employer and recover 10/- or 15/- a week for a period of ten or 15 years, because the employer had not conformed to the technical necessity of getting a certificate from this man before he was employed. I think it is right that the farmer should be entitled to go into court and say, in his own defence, that he did not look upon this man as a labourer at all, but as the afflicted child of a neighbour for whom he was glad to provide an opening, and that it never crossed his mind to go through the performance of getting a certificate, and that he was prepared to produce abundant evidence that the man's condition was such, at the time the contract was entered into, that the certificate would have been issued had it been applied for. Where the court is satisfied that that is so, it ought to have the power, provided here in Section 5, to deem that such a certificate had been issued, and dismiss the case.

Where an employer has hired an able-bodied man at a lower rate of wages, he is clearly bound under the moral law to restore to that man, no matter how long it is due or how much the sum, what he was immorally withholding. I think it would ill become this Legislature to lay down that we withhold from the employee his right to assert at law that moral claim, against which I do not think any citizen of this State would contend. Surely the farmers of this country are not so low-grade that they do not know the difference between right and wrong? I believe every farmer knows perfectly well what his obligations are. I cannot conceive a situation in which a farmer had in his employment a man who was receiving less than the statutory rate of wages not knowing at some stage that that situation obtained. I am convinced that 99 per cent. of the total number of cases where agricultural wage earners were getting less than the statutory wage will prove to be cases where the employer well knew that he was not paying the full rate. In such a case, I would allow of no limitation to the claim.

I think it is perfectly right, as provided in this Bill, that an employee, to assert his claim, should take action within a limited time after his employment with the man had ceased. I see the provision here is that he may institute proceedings at any time within two years of the cesser of his employment. I presume that if he continues in the man's employment, some section here operates to limit his right of recovery to two years. I could justify limiting the period after the cesser of employment for the institution of proceedings to six months. As soon as the labourer becomes aware of his rights, he ought to make up his mind whether he is going to assert them or not; and he is not entitled to keep that decision hanging, like the sword of Damocles, over the head of his employer. The employer is entitled to say to the ex-employee: "If we have differed, let us go to law within a reasonable time and have the matter determined between us." It is not fair to leave the farmer, not knowing what is going to happen and having no means of bringing the case to a conclusion, for two years after he has received notification of the employee's claim.

I therefore urge most strongly on the Minister that he should reconsider his attitude on Section 4. Unless the right of the employee to recover in full that which has been wrongfully withheld is left unlimited, I think the very small number of persons who would defraud labourers of their hire will be tempted, by the possibility of never having to recoup more than two years' arrears, to try it on. But should they successfully try it on for ten, 15 or 20 years, and be liable at the end of so long a term to repay all that they have stolen, very few boys will take the risk. Consider what this means: pause before you opt for this. Suppose you deny the agricultural labourer 2/- a week, that is, 104/- a year or £10 8s. for the two years; suppose you consistently, over a protracted period, endeavour to screw down your employee to the lowest figure he will take, the maximum penalty, the worst that can befall you, if you are paying your employee 2/- a week too little, is that that employee will recover £10 8s. Do you not think a lot of people would take that risk?

Why should we concern ourselves for people who withhold from the labourer his hire? For such people I have no sympathy at all; I would give them no protection from the law, good, bad or indifferent. I would extend no sympathy to them; they should be made answerable to the last penny. I cannot conceive of any argument being advanced to justify a concession of this kind.

Mind you, there may be some people who will answer me by asking: Why do you justify the statute of limitations at all, for the simple reason that if a creditor allows a debtor to lose sight of his liability for the want of due prosecution of his rights, it is contrary to precedent that the law should be invoked to correct the laches, the laziness of the creditor? At any period of the currency of the debt the debtor could be brought to court and the creditor could get his decree. The reason he did not go is pure laziness or reluctance to enforce the debt. If his reluctance mounts to the stage when he allows it to go on for six years, that is a kind of implied indication to the debtor that he is not to be forced to pay. There is no analogy between the relations of those two persons and a man depending not only for his own livelihood, but for his wife's and his children's livelihood on the good will of the other party to the contract, a man who, if he claims his due, may find himself on the side of the road with no job at all.

The whole purpose of this wage-fixing machinery is to come to the assistance of persons who are constrained by the social conditions obtaining in this country to enter into contracts while they are at a material disadvantage vis-a-vis the other party to the contract. Why else fix wages? Is it not fantastic, after you have set up a whole structure of wage-fixing machinery on the ground that the labourer, in whose behalf you have passed the legislation, is comparatively defenceless vis-a-vis the employer, to come along at the next stage and take from the employee the most effective sanction he can invoke against a dishonest, law-breaking employer? I cannot believe that this House will take up the position that that which everybody here is agreed upon is a sin crying out to Heaven for vengeance is to be afforded the protection of special legislation. If that aspect of the problem has not presented itself to the Minister or to Deputies, I ask them to consider it now and allow us to mend our hand in respect of the proposals in Section 4.

Mr. O'Donnell

We have had a lecture on the Ten Commandments and the Seven Deadlies, and we have heard of the sin crying out to Heaven for vengeance. It was all very interesting, but I remember a short time ago here when we were looking for a reasonable price for our stuff, sufficient to pay for the cost of production and give a little margin of profit, that Deputy Dillon walked into the Lobby against us.

Mr. Dillon

Tripe. Most of what you say in this House is tripe, but that is the tripiest of tripe.

Mr. O'Donnell

The prophet talks to us about the Ten Commandments and the Seven Deadlies, but now the prophet is going. If the Deputy were to live by farming, he might not make so much out of it.

Mr. Cogan

He cannot take his medicine.

Mr. O'Donnell

He cannot take his medicine, but he can administer it all right. "Tripe," he said, and then walked out. I do not know any of these farmers who do not pay their men a fair wage. One would imagine that the farmers are parasites. We looked here for £3 an acre, but most of the House voted against us. I was working last Monday evening on a Tipperary farm. The rain was coming and the horse-flies in the fields were taking bits out of our faces. The conclusion I came to, not for the first but for the twenty-first time, was that you could put a man working on every 30-acre farm, two men on every 60-acre farm and three men on every 90-acre farm, but this House would not give us sufficient to pay them. The gentleman who talked about tripe walked out. He was one of the crowd who walked into the Lobby against us when we tried to give the farmers something reasonable. I am sorry he did not wait to hear me; he was going to get it. We were looking for 1/- a gallon for milk. I was reminded of that, too, when I was at the hay last Monday and the rain was coming. "Never mind," said one, "it is dung we are making and not hay, and we are sick turning it." Twenty cows came through the thorny hedges; the place was badly fenced. We could not get men to fence the land because the House here would not give us the wherewithal.

An Ceann Comhairle

It might be better to take the verdict on that occasion as being the verdict, and deal with this Bill.

Mr. O'Donnell

I am merely alluding to the fact that there is talk about farmers not paying wages and yet the House is not prepared to treat them reasonably. There is not a farm-house in any part of the country that a hungry man is allowed to pass by any day of the year. Farmers do not defraud people out of their wages. The gentleman who walked out lectured us on the Ten Commandments, on the sins crying out to Heaven for vengeance, and talked of tripe and cowheel.

I do not think this is a fearfully important measure. The farmers in Tipperary are paying more than the minimum wage; at least, they are paying the minimum wage and are treating their men well. The difficulty is to get men on the land. You are not making it attractive. Our sons are going off the land — they will not stay there. Deputy Dillon hinted at an exportable surplus. If he got milk at 5d. per gallon he could export butter and it would be all right. We do not want Deputy Dillon's lecture on these matters. We have got fair sick listening to him. Give us a fair show. We have asked for reasonable prices in order to be able to employ and pay men.

We asked for a fair price for beet. We find it hard to pay our men, but we are doing our best. You did not accede to our request to increase the price of milk and beet. The £3 an acre has gone by the board now, because the war is over. The English farmer was getting £10 an acre for potatoes. We did not. If you increase the price of beet you will be able to give sugar to the nation. I am sorry the tripe-and-cowheel gentleman did not wait. He is not half as sick of me as I am of him, and the Tipperary farmers are sick of him, too.

Mr. McAuliffe

I agree with other Deputies who suggested that we should endeavour to improve the conditions under which agricultural workers are trying to exist. If we are anxious to compete with other countries, such as the country across the water, to which is every inducement for our workers to emigrate, we shall have to improve the position in our own country. The only way in which the conditions of the agricultural workers here can be improved is by the introduction of some scheme whereby they will be entitled to a least one week's leave. They are contributing very substantially to the production of foodstuffs here and, as regards the harvesting operations, I would like to suggest that the Minister should seriously consider granting a harvest bonus to agricultural labourers. That in itself would improve the conditions under which these people are trying to exist at the moment.

Mr. O'Leary

The worst employer in the country to-day is the Government who are not paying the agricultural rate of wages to forestry workers or men working on the land under the Land Commission. Take the road workers in County Wexford. They have less than £2 per week and our county manager——

An Ceann Comhairle

The payment of road workers does not arise on this Bill.

Mr. O'Leary

I am merely pointing out——

An Ceann Comhairle

If it does not arise, why point it out?

Mr. O'Leary

The Minister said that it was the wish of the Department that these workers should be kept on the present rates of pay. Is that a fact? I certainly agree with the suggestion for a harvest bonus, and I had a question down last year in that connection. I do not agree with the Deputy from Tipperary who spoke of being unable to get men. I think that is wrong, because, according to the unemployment figures, we have thousands of unemployed, and I find that when jobs at the turf dumps are available, the farmer's son goes in, while the ordinary worker on the dole has to remain.

We speak of the flight from the land. It is the farmers' sons who are leaving the land, while the agricultural worker has to live on starvation wages of £1 19s. 6d. per week, and pay out of that 2/6 a week to the board of health for a cottage. It is impossible for the agricultural worker to live on that wage with the cost of living as it is to-day.

I hold that the small farmer should be subsidised because the man who is unable to pay on Saturday night cannot keep a man. Big industries are subsidised and small farmers should also be subsidised to enable them to employ men. The Bill provides that a farmer can work a man for upwards of two years, and to get money owing to him the labourer will have to go into court and pay a solicitor, which will probably cost half the amount due to him. There is no protection in the Bill for the agricultural worker. The majority of them are unorganised, but there is protection for the farmer after two years, because, I suppose, since the local elections, some of the Fianna Fáil farmers have spoken to the Minister and have told him that a certain number of farmers have had to pay up. It is very unfair that a working man should have to bring a farmer into court to compel him to pay the miserable sum of £2 per week.

One thing must be done: we must encourage the workers to stay on the land and the only way in which that can be done is by paying them. If we want contented men, we must pay them. The majority of farmers are paying, but others are escaping, and the man who works with them is in a very bad position. He may be living in the house which belongs to the farmer, and if he seeks to get his money he may be told to get out of the house, and he probably will not get a job in that area again. I know that there are people in this position, because I get letters from agricultural labourers in my constituency asking me to send down the Wages Board inspector or to forward his address to them. As other Deputies have said, we have inspectors dealing with old age pensions and widows' pensions, but wage inspectors are very few. I have never seen them yet.

The farmer has guaranteed prices and the Minister should take his courage in his hands and ensure a guaranteed wage and protection for the worker. During harvest time in years gone by, they got a bonus, and they should get a bonus to-day. It may be said that these men get many perquisites. There may be a few decent employers who give them milk or potatoes, but not all of them do so, and, if we want to employ men on the land, the small farmer must be aided. It is easy enough for the man with capital who can carry on from harvest to harvest. He probably has a milk or other business to bring in money every week, but the farmer with only a small acreage is not able to pay and these are the people who must be assisted, because they are in as bad a position as the worker. They are just struggling from one threshing to another and working on credit.

I appeal to the Minister to increase the rate of wages. Industrial workers have got a bonus of 11/- per week and how can we expect men in rural Ireland with £1 19s. 6d. per week to bring up families, pay rent and insurance and meet other liabilities, such as clothing and boots? In fact, they cannot buy clothes and the purchase of agricultural boots at £2 per pair is beyond them. These are the matters which will have to be faced if we are to keep our men on the land.

Mr. Corish

The principal feature of this Bill appears to be to prevent the agricultural labourer from recovering any arrears of wages due to him after a period of two years. I cannot understand the attitude of the Minister in this connection. It is all very well for him to say that an agricultural labourer offers himself for employment at a lesser wage than the minimum wage laid down by the Wages Board, but I am sure the Minister is as well aware as I am of the conditions which prevail in various parts of the country.

As other Deputies have pointed out, a man may be in very bad circumstances. There may be three or four other men in similar circumstances in the particular district in which the job is available and he may be compelled by force of circumstances to take advantage of a farmer's offer, which may be that he will take him into his employment at a lesser wage than is required to be paid by the regulations.

I do not agree with the attitude of a man who goes into employment at lesser wages, but that is the position which prevails, and in that connection I should like to ask how often the Minister's inspectors visit various districts. Do they visit these districts of their own accord, or do they not visit them until asked to do so by an agricultural labourer or on representations made by some person on behalf of an agricultural labourer?

I have never yet heard of a case in my county of visits having been paid to farmers in an endeavour to find out what wages are being paid to their employees. We all know that it is possible to find unscrupulous employers amongst farmers, as amongst others, and if a man complains to the Wages Board that he is not getting the minimum wage, such a farmer may be brought to court, but it will follow, as night the day, that that man will be discharged from his position as soon as the court case is over. I think, if the Minister were to provide that there should be visits from his inspectors in those districts at certain periods, there would be tightening-up in connection with the payment of the proper wage to agricultural labourers. When he is replying, I should like him to tell us whether the inspectors visit the various districts periodically.

On the general question of agricultural wages, is the Minister able to give us any idea as to how the wages are determined? What evidence is taken into consideration? It would appear to me that the method adopted is a slipshod one—that it is merely a compromise between one thing and another. Has any effort been made to ascertain what, if any, the profits of the farmer are? Has it been ascertained whether the farmer is in a position to pay the minimum wage that is in operation now, or whether he is in a position now, or will be at any future date, to pay a higher wage? In an ordinary industry if a man is not able to pay an increase in wages to his employees, he is helped by the Department of Industry and Commerce in some cases, or he hands on the increase to the consumer.

I should like to see a state of affairs in which the whole question of agricultural prices would be examined, and an effort made to find out what is the exact relationship of the wages now being paid to the profits, if any, that the farmers are making. I do not think it is good enough to say that a farm labourer shall have only £2 a week and that the farmer is not able to pay any more. I think some proof should be forthcoming. If the farmer is not able to pay any more because of the prices he is getting for his produce at the present time, then his prices should be adjusted in such a way as to enable him to pay a decent wage to his labourers. The farmers and the farm labourers have been the Cinderellas of this country in so far as the economic system is concerned. I would urge the Minister to say if he is aware as to how the wages are determined by the Agricultural Wages Board.

Some speakers have referred to the fact that the agricultural labourer gets no holiday. In recent years, under the Conditions of Employment Act, industrial workers were given a week's holidays in the year, and they are paid for certain bank holidays. In some areas the Catholic holidays were substituted for bank holidays. I do not know anybody in this country who wants holidays worse than the agricultural labourer. He is employed at a long, weary, monotonous week's work. He has longer hours than the industrial worker. He works all day, from Monday until Saturday, inclusive, and in a great many cases he has to work on Sundays, so that to all intents and purposes he has a seven-day week. Surely it is not too much to expect that the farmer should be asked to adjust his work in such a manner as to enable the farm labourer to get holidays in the same way as the industrial worker gets them. He should at least be given a half-day in the week. The farm labourer has shopping to do, just the same as anybody else. He has to buy clothes and boots. The Minister should ask the Wages Board to go into that matter with a view to finding out whether it is possible — I believe it is possible, with good will on the part of the farmer and the farm labourer — to give the farm labourer at least a half-day's pay.

On various occasions in this House questions have been put down requesting the Minister to ask the Wages Board to grant a harvest bonus to the farm labourers. As the Minister knows, under the Corn Production Act introduced by the British Government during the last war there was a stipulated amount of money paid as a harvest bonus to the farm labourer. I suggest that that should be done now. We notice within the last week that certain workers are being asked to work to help to save the harvest, and those men are getting a good deal more money than the agricultural labourers. I do not begrudge them that money; I think they earn it. But surely if those men are brought in at a higher wage than that paid to the farm labourer, the latter should get something by way of encouragement at harvest time. In dealing with this matter, I am not saying for a moment that farmers generally are not paying the minimum wage. I am perfectly satisfied that 90 per cent. of them are paying the minimum wage.

I think the Bill is wrong. I agree with Deputy Dillon that a man should pay his lawful debts even though two years have passed. There is not a bit of use in his craw-thumping so long as he is not paying his agricultural labourers what they should be paid according to the law. Apart altogether from the law, there is the moral aspect of the matter. The farmer has no right to keep a man working from Monday to Saturday and sometimes on Sunday, and at the end of the week not give him sufficient money to enable him to keep his children in a proper manner.

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

The first question I was asked by Deputy Fogarty was with regard to gardeners. If anybody will examine the Act he will find in Section 2 a definition which decides what an agricultural labourer is. In effect, it amounts to this, that any person who is working for a farmer, at market gardening or anything else, comes under the Agricultural Wages Act. The only gardeners who would be exempt are those working in city gardens, and I do not think it would be possible to do anything about that category under this particular legislation.

I think it would be more appropriate to some of the other Acts which have been brought in with regard to conditions of employment. It is true that it is a minimum wage. I think that is known generally throughout the country. Deputy Fogarty made some statement that some body, an agricultural wages board or something else, had fixed the wage for Dublin and other places for attendants on threshing sets. That is not true. Deputy Larkin talked about the general idea of, say, regulation of wages. It is done either through organisation of the men themselves, that is, trade unionism, or it is done by legislation.

I have always looked upon this legislation dealing with agricultural wages as a scheme more or less to replace trade unionism, because it was not possible for trade unionism to organise agricultural workers. I looked upon the machinery set up as, more or less, taking the place of what might be regarded as the meetings from time to time of the representatives of workers, through trade unions, and the representatives of employers. Deputies are aware that, first of all, there are committees set up throughout the country. On these committees are representatives from each county of employers and employees. These committees meet occasionally and make certain proposals for consideration by the central board which, again, is composed of representatives of employers and employees with what are called three neutral members and the chairman. Where the representatives of the employers and employees on the board agree on anything with regard to wages, the chairman just accepts it. It is a sort of conciliation up to that point. If the parties concerned agree the chairman makes it a rule of law by issuing an Order which must be obeyed. If, however, they do not agree, then the chairman has these three neutral members as his advisers, and the rule that he makes at that stage becomes arbitration. The scheme may have defects, but if we look on the present scheme in that way, and if we want to make any improvements in it we ought at least try to recognise what is the true position, and then go ahead and make any improvements that we think fit.

Deputy Larkin talked about the low fines imposed in cases that come before the courts. I answered a question which the Deputy put to me some time ago on that matter, and in my reply I gave some interesting figures. I think it would be no harm if I were to repeat them. I told Deputy Larkin on that occasion that from the time the board was set up in 1937, up to the end of 1944, the inspectors under the board had carried out, roughly, 50,000 inspections. They found breaches of Wages Orders in 7,000 cases, roughly, out of 50,000. They brought only about 50 cases to court. I do not know if Deputy Larkin gathered from my reply that, in all other cases where there had been breaches of the Orders, the inspector was satisfied that the employer had been acting in ignorance and, what is more, the employer made things right by paying up whatever arrears were due to the employee, and continued to pay the proper rate of wages from that date on. Where the inspector was fairly well satisfied that the wrong wage was being paid through ignorance, he was right to settle the thing on the spot and not proceed any further, but where he suspected that the offence was not due to ignorance then there was a summary case brought to court.

That, however, was not Deputy Larkin's complaint. It was that the penalties imposed were very small. I agree that the fines imposed were very small. No fine was higher than £15. It must be remembered, however, that was the fine for a breach of the regulations but, in addition, it must be assumed that the court ordered the arrears of wages due to be paid up Perhaps that was the reason why the court was a bit lenient — that a big amount of arrears was due and that, as the employer would have to pay up these arrears, it considered that was sufficient for the time, anyway. I am only suggesting that as a possible reason for the low fines. I agree with Deputy Larkin, or any other Deputy who may look back on the answer to the question that I gave on the 26th of April, that the fines were very much smaller than I would like them to be in such cases.

Mr. Dillon

But where there was a large amount of arrears to be paid, surely it was reasonable for the court to impose only a moderate fine?

Dr. Ryan

Yes. Although in all reason the fines should be higher, it was human for the Justice to come to the conclusion that as an employer had to pay arrears amounting perhaps to £200, it was not possible for him to pay very much in the way of a fine. Deputy Larkin said that the inspectors were withdrawn at a time when their services could be more justifiably used. He said they were withdrawn at the beginning of the war when farmers were better off. I must say that I look upon it in a different way. I look on it in this way, that it was not likely that any employer would try to evade paying the minimum wage during the war for the reason that it was a little bit difficult for employers to get men. I do not know of any area where employers were able to get men easily. They certainly were not able to get them during the last four or five years if they did not pay them the proper wage. At the time the inspectors were withdrawn there was some difficulty in finding inspectors for various other schemes. I think we were justified at the time in withdrawing them. In fact, at that time the Agricultural Wages Board agreed that there was not then the same necessity for close inspections as had obtained up to that period. I think that if there was any danger of any slight depression in agriculture the services of the inspectors would again be required, at least to the same extent as before the war. At the same time, I want to say that I do not think there are many defaulters under the Act at the moment.

It is not true, as some Deputies have said, that the legislation in general is there for the benefit of the employer and is weighted more or less against the employees. It was certainly claimed by some Deputies that the amendments in this Bill are so weighted. That is not altogether just. It was also stated by some Deputies that if an employee having worked for, say, two years with a farmer, finds that he had been underpaid, he has to brief a solicitor and pay court costs in order to get his money. That is not altogether right. Under the Act the Board is empowered to act on behalf of the employee, and, as far as I know, it has never refused to take up the case of an employee who, in its opinion, had a genuine claim for the recovery of wages. The Board will take up a case for an employee and, if necessary, will go to court and fight the case in order to get him the wages due to him. Therefore, I do not think it can be said that the Board or the legislation is in any way against the interests of employees.

Some Labour Deputies have made the point that it is unfair to limit the wages due to a period of two years. Deputy Dillon, from another angle, made I think the same point. In connection with Deputy Dillon's point, I want to say that I am sure it is a big moral offence for an employer not to pay the proper wage to his employee, but I think we will have to leave the employer to be dealt with by another court as far as that is concerned, and just deal with him here under the Agricultural Wages Act. Under the present law an employee can claim wages for 20 years only and not for all time. Obviously, therefore, whether it is 20 years, ten years or two years that is in the Act, it is a matter of degree. It is not a matter of principle but of expediency what number of years we use. The area committees of the Wages Board recommended one year. I thought one year was too little and I changed their recommendation to two years in bringing in the Bill. Remember the point that they made—I mention it again because Deputy Dillon spoke of a man who found it hard to get work and who eventually went to an employer and said: "I will work for 2/- less than the proper wage." That particular man is doing a great injury to his fellowmen by agreeing to work for less than the proper wage and I think we should not encourage him to do it. If we are entitling him to two years' arrears, it is not so bad but we should not allow him to go on too long. We ought to say: "You can only carry on that game for a certain length. If you continue more than two years, you will not get anything out of it." In other words we ought to make him take action against the employer. That will have a good effect in the area. The local employers generally will pay the proper wages in future. I think it is a good thing that there should be some limit to it.

I should like to put it to Deputy Larkin and Deputy Corish, if they had a man in their union who was working with an employer, unknown to them, for 3/- or 4/- less than the recognised wage of the trade union, would they be very nice to him if they discovered it after two years? Would they shake hands with him and say: "Go on; we will get your money back"? I am quite sure that under their union rules they would have power to deal with a man of that kind and that he would not be considered a good union man or a great friend of the union and probably would be dealt with very severely. I do not think we ought under any circumstances to be too kind to a man who takes work at less than the proper wage. I am talking now of the able-bodied man. I should like— as Deputy Larkin urged—to try to penalise the employer more, if possible, but, of course, penalising the employer more by lengthening the period is, in my opinion, being too easy on the employee. If we could have some sort of system whereby we would allow the employee a maximum of two years' arrears but at the same time make the employer pay dearly for what he had done, it would be the ideal thing. The only thing I suggest in that case is that we should try as far as possible to make the penalties as high as possible. Again, I am up against a stone wall there. I have tried a system of minimum penalties and I do not think it is a great success. Therefore the only thing I can suggest is, if this Bill is passed, and if the employer is going to get away with a maximum of two years' arrears, to put it to the Board that in all cases in future, wherever possible, they should plead as hard as they can for a heavy penalty on the employer who is defaulting. I think it is only fair and just that he should be made pay up, if this Bill is passed.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister will bear in mind the danger of promoting blackmail by that course.

Dr. Ryan

What I am trying to do is to stop blacklegging.

Mr. Dillon

Blackmailing. If you put it within the knowledge of a fellow who has culpably taken employment at less than the current wage that he can invoke on the employer's head a devastating penalty, that does place within the hands of an unscrupulous person a means of blackmailing.

Dr. Ryan

What I said is that I would urge the Board to try as far as they possibly can in future to inflict a heavy penalty by way of fine on the employer in addition to any arrears of wages he may have to pay.

Mr. Dillon

That opens the door to serious possibilities of blackmailing.

Dr. Ryan

I do not know. The court, I am sure, will see that things are done fairly. Deputy Larkin mentioned the point about the selecting of names for these committees and boards. That is an extremely difficult matter. When this Bill was before the Dáil in 1936, it was recognised by everybody present that, practically speaking, there was no such thing in this country as a labour union representing the agricultural labourers and no such thing as a farmers' union representing the farmers. It was, therefore, put into the Bill that the Minister for Agriculture would select representatives of farmers and of employers and employees for the committees and for the central board. In fact, in the beginning I consulted the county committees of agriculture and they were helpful as far as the employers' representatives were concerned but in very many cases they said they were unable to speak for the employees' representatives. So, the thing went on. It may be true, as Deputy Larkin has said, that in a particular area there may be some attempt at organisation of the agricultural workers, but I think no Deputy will claim that there is any substantial organisation of these workers. In fact, I would say—I am not saying this by way of threat—that if the farmers were properly organised in a farmers' union and if the labourers were properly organised in a labourers' union, we could withdraw all this and let the two go ahead and fix their own business. This is only in lieu of organisation on both sides, and was brought in only because there was no organisation there.

There were three matters mentioned, which I am afraid, as was anticipated by the Deputies concerned, I have to plead are not altogether matters for this debate, that is, the harvest bonus, the half-holiday and the annual holiday. There is no objection, as far as I can see, to the Agricultural Wages Board considering these matters. I think it is the opinion of the Agricultural Wages Board that under the present law they have not any legal authority to fix conditions of that kind—such as half-holidays or annual holidays. They could, of course, certainly fix a harvest bonus. In any case, whether they have the right or not, I would feel very loath to approach them on a question like that, because I have never made any suggestion to the Agricultural Wages Board that they should raise or lower wages at any particular time, and I think Deputies will agree that it is much better that I should not, and that I should leave them to deal with these matters as they think fit.

Deputy Corish asked a question as to the considerations that the committees and the board have in mind in fixing the wages. I do not know. I think the procedure is that they meet and I presume the employees take the initiative by saying they would like to have a little higher wage, and I suppose the employers point out what their position is, whether the position is better than it was last year or not. I presume they discuss the matter to discover what can the employer afford to give and what can the employee afford to live upon. There has been a fair amount of unanimity on practically every change that was made so far. When the chairman submits a report to me in respect of any change in wage, he usually gives me the numbers who voted for and against in each committee, and the numbers that voted for and against, if there is a vote, at the Agricultural Wages Board.

As a matter of fact, I do not know if there ever was a vote at the Agricultural Wages Board. I think these things were always settled very amicably. On every occasion, it was very strange that the general feeling all over the country was that there should be an increase of 2/6 or 3/- or no increase at all, as the case may be. It was in that way that it was fixed.

I was looking up figures some time ago, on an occasion when I was speaking in the Seanad, on a motion dealing with agricultural wages; and I found that, if we were to take, for the year 1931, the three figures—the net output of the farmer, the cost of living and the agricultural wages—and compare them with the corresponding figures for the subsequent years up to 1944, it would be found that they went up practically pari passu up to 1944. In referring to “net output” there, I mean the gross income of the farmer less what he has to buy in the way of imported feeding stuffs, fertilisers and seeds but not agricultural machiney, or payment for rent and rates. There was always an exactly equal percentage in the three cases—I remember that it was about 70 per cent. The cost of living went up by the same percentage as the income of the farmer and the wages of the labourer. Therefore, if it can be assumed—I do not know whether everybody will agree or not—that the agricultural labourer was fairly treated in 1931, he is equally fairly treated in 1944; and that is all I can say about it.

I do not think that the wages committees or the Agricultural Wages Board had these figures before them when making their changes. I think the changes recommended by the committees and made by the board were made on the ordinary basis of negotiation, by the employers and employees discussing the matter and coming to a fair decision in regard to any increase.

With reference to the point raised by Deputy Corish regarding the inspectors, the number of inspectors was reduced during the war and I do not think they go anywhere unless they are sent for. I think the number of calls takes up all their time.

Mr. Corish

Would the Minister reexamine that, now that the war is over, and see that they call more often?

Dr. Ryan

I will examine the question again.

Question put.

The Dáil, divided: Tá, 64; Níl, 21.

Tá

Aiken, Frank.
Allen, Denis.
Bartley, Gerald.
Beegan, Patrick.
Bennett, George C.
Blaney, Neal.
Brady, Seán.
Breen, Daniel.
Brennan, Thomas.
Breslin, Cormac.
Briscoe, Robert.
Buckley, Seán.
Burke, Patrick (Co. Dublin).
Butler, Bernard.
Carter, Thomas.
Childers, Erskine H.
Cogan, Patrick.
Colbert, Michael.
Colley, Harry.
Derrig, Thomas.
De Valera Eamon.
Donnellan, Michael.
Flynn, Stephen.
Fogarty, Andrew.
Fogarty, Patrick J.
Furlong, Walter.
Gorry, Patrick J.
Halliden, Patrick J.
Harris, Thomas.
Healy, John B.
Hilliard, Michael.
Hughes, James.
Humphreys, Francis.
Kennedy, Michael J.
Killilea, Mark.
Kilroy, James.
Kissane, Eamon.
Lemass, Seán F.
Loughman, Frank.
Lydon, Michael F.
McCann, John.
McCarthy, Seán.
MacEoin, Seán.
Moran, Michael.
Mulcahy, Richard.
O Briain, Donnchadh.
O Cléirigh, Mícheál.
O'Connor, John S.
O'Donnell, William F.
O'Driscoll, Patrick F.
O'Grady, Seán.
O'Loghlen, Peter J.
O'Reilly, Matthew.
O'Rourke, Daniel.
Rice, Bridget M.
Ruttledge, Patrick J.
Ryan, James.
Ryan, Robert.
Sheldon, William A. W.
Sheridan, Michael.
Smith, Patrick.
Traynor, Oscar.
Walsh, Laurence.
Ward, Conn.

Níl

Byrne, Alfred.
Cafferky, Dominick.
Coogan, Eamonn.
Corish, Richard.
Cosgrave, Liam.
Davin, William.
Dillon, James M.
Dockrell, Maurice E.
Doyle, Peadar S.
Everett, James.
Flanagan, Oliver J.
Giles, Patrick.
Keating, John.
Keyes, Michael.
Larkin, James (Junior).
McAuliffe, Patrick.
Murphy, Timothy J.
O'Leary, John.
O'Sullivan, Martin.
Pattison, James P.
Spring, Daniel.

Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Ó Cíosáin and Ó Cinnéide; Níl: Deputies Davin and Keyes.

Question declared carried.

Dr. Ryan

I should like to have the Committee Stage taken next Wednesday.

Ordered accordingly.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 4 Jul 1945