In speaking on this Bill on the last date on which it was under discussion, I was making the point that the relations between the farmer and his labourer were very different from the relations which exist between the industrial employer and his employees, and that we should try to avoid, if possible, having the same rigid rules and regulations in the case of the farmer and his labourer that we already have in existence for the industrial employer and his employee. I just want to add, so far as that point is concerned, that the reason why I make that point is that in a number of cases —I do not know whether I can say the majority in this country, but certainly, so far as I know, the majority of agricultural labourers— they get more holidays with pay than would be provided for in this Bill if it were passed. In addition to that, the agricultural labourer gets certain help in connection with looking after his plot and so on, and if we were to pass this legislation it might have the effect of having the rigid rule applied: that is, that he would get a certain number of holidays with pay, but no more, or no more outside help than he is getting at the moment.
Against that, however, I must say that I agree, and I think that almost every member of this House agrees, that we should do everything possible for the agricultural labourer. We all agree that his lot is not a very happy one, so far as remuneration and working conditions go, generally, and if we can improve his position, then all to the good. The question, however, is to know how that improvement can be effected as things stand, because we must deal with this Bill from the point of view of how things stand. In the case of Deputies who have read the speeches that were made in the House on the last day, there is no use in their saying that they are in favour of this Bill and of giving more concessions to the agricultural labourer, conditional on the farmer being in a position to do so. We must take the position as it is at the moment, and if Deputies are going to vote in favour of this Bill, then they should vote on the understanding that the farmer is in a position to do this at the present prices which he gets. It must be admitted, of course, that if the employer can afford to give the agricultural labourer better wages and better conditions than he has at the moment, it follows that the small farmer is in a better position than we believe him to be in.
On the question of whether this is the time to make reforms of this kind, I should like to ask the Dáil to consider the position that we are in and what is likely to be before us for some time to come. I should like to stress in particular that the objective of, I think, everybody is more and higher production in agriculture. If we can get higher production by working shorter hours, well and good, but I do not know if that is possible. More production, of course, means more work, and it is held by some that if a labourer or worker has shorter hours and good holidays he will do more and better work than if he were working for longer hours. Deputies who vote for or against this Bill can keep that point in mind and express their opinion on it by their votes. What we can hope for in agricultural production is a higher aggregate income for agriculture in general, and if there is a higher aggregate income with more production, it means that with the same number of workers, there whether farmers, sons of farmers, or agricultural labourers, there should be more for ever person engaged.
Now, that question of more production is a matter that must come from planning—planning by the farmers themselves, by the county committees of agriculture, by the Department of Agriculture, by me, by the Government, and by the Dáil. If and when we get higher production and a higher aggregate income for all engaged in agriculture, the Agricultural Wages Board is the body to arbitrate, as it were, between the employer and the employee. Now, in the Agricultural Wages Board, we have representatives of the employers and the employees, and I think that it takes no great imagination for any Deputy to reconstruct, if you like, what takes place at a meeting there: in other words, that the representatives of the workers make the plea that it is difficult, if not impossible, for an agricultural labourer to live on his present wage, and they, therefore, try to get a better wage for the worker; whereas the representatives of the employers, I take it, make the case that they are paying as much as they can afford, or almost as much as they can afford, if they are agreeable to give a small rise. At any rate, the two sides make their case and, so far, although that board has been in operation for almost ten years now—well, nine years, certainly—they have got general agreement on the wages and conditions that should apply to agricultural labourers —that is, of course, the minimum wage that should apply, and the conditions. So that we have there a body which has been working successfully, on the whole, on this problem for all these years, and I think that anything that concerns agricultural wages or conditions should come from that body. The Agricultural Wages Board have to consider various matters and weigh the circumstances. Let us take the case of Church holidays first, and say that the question arose of whether agricultural labourers are entitled to Church holidays with pay: if there should be any difficulty there, as would appear to be in the minds of some people as to the legal aspect of the matter, they would have at least my co-operation and, I should say, the sympathy of the Dáil in dealing with a matter of that kind.
