Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Nov 1950

Vol. 123 No. 5

Agricultural Workers (Weekly Half-Holidays) Bill, 1950—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be read a Second Time."—(Deputy Dunne.)

Mr. Dunne

In the last debate on this Bill I referred to the fact that it was not impossible to anticipate some of the arguments that might be brought forward against it, and in fact within the past week or two Deputies have taken the opportunity to express their opposition to the idea of a farm labourer getting a half-day in the week. The criticisms of the Bill are so puny as to be hardly worthy of answer, but it is as well, I think, to refer to them just the same.

In the first instance, it has been said that this Bill is undesirable—that it is undesirable that a farm labourer who is paid less than any other worker in the country should get a weekly half-holiday. I have never met any person in agriculture who expressed that view although it has been expressed by public representatives and I have discussed the matter with workers and farmers in most counties in the country. I think it is more than desirable that these workers should be given fair treatment and it is a very small thing to ask that out of their long working week of 54 hours they should get four hours holiday on a Saturday. Everyone knows that farm workers living in rural areas very often removed by long distances from villages, towns and shopping centres are very much inconvenienced at the present time. In many cases they are put to great hardship by virtue of the fact that many of them are paid only on Saturday night when they finish at tea-time and they must then go to the shopping centre which may be many miles from home in order to meet their weekly accounts and to make what few purchases they can make out of their meagre wages so I think that many Deputies who would be inclined to describe the Bill as undesirable is not doing justice to the agricultural workers of this country.

It has been said also that the Bill is unnecessary. I wonder who thinks it unnecessary. The man who works for the farmer does not think it unnecessary. Many farmers have spoken to me and I have yet to meet one who thinks it undesirable or unnecessary. They may have stated their belief that it could be impracticable but the greatest objection I have come up against is that farmers do not want to see the half-holiday made operative by piecemeal methods. If it were made a national requirement, if they were required by law to meet the minimum of a weekly half-holiday for their workers they would do that so long as they were satisfied that every farmer in the country was doing it.

As I stated on the last occasion, in my own area, County Dublin, we have been operating this half-day for agricultural labourers since 1944, that is six years, and you will not find any farmer to say what has been said in this House that the proposals inherent in this Bill will bring about disaster for Irish agriculture. To my mind that represents the worst element of reaction as far as progressive thinking is concerned.

Surely we have come to the time when we can deal with the men who work on the land on some sort of fair basis. If it is possible for a working farmer living in Meath, Dublin or Wicklow to give a half-holiday to agricultural labourers it should be no hardship in other countries. There are many farmers who employ no labour on the land and they will not be affected by the Bill, but the farmers who do employ labour will have no objection to the Bill if it becomes law, and I sincerely hope that members of the agricultural industry in this House, no matter what Party they belong to, who at election time appeal to the farm labourers as well as to the farmers for votes, will not forget their responsibility to the labourers who gave them their votes and that they will bring this measure of justice to them. They are the last section of workers who have not a half-holiday. Not alone are they the last section who have not benefited, but there are more agricultural labourers working for wages in Ireland than there are workers in any other occupation or industry. They are the most important form of wage labour in the country, and on that score this House should give very serious consideration to the Bill.

This vote, I understand, will be a free vote of the House, and I think that is an advantage because very often in times gone by, when issues of this kind were discussed and the Party whip was cracked, the true opinion of the House may not have been expressed. I am putting this measure before the House for the consideration of all Parties purely on its merits, and I am convinced that it is a minimum which no decent-thinking Irishman would refuse to the agricultural labourers. It should be remembered, too, that the representatives of the farmers who come to this House and make efforts to improve the position of the farmers declaim very eloquently at times upon the responsibility that this State has to the agricultural community. This being an agricultural country, nobody will deny that our primary consideration as a Parliament must now and always be for the agricultural community and I think that successive Governments have given consideration to that very large section of our population. If that responsibility exists where the farmer and the State are concerned, I think it exists, too, where the farmer and his employee are concerned.

There has been an endless amount of ill-informed discussion with regard to the relationship between the farm worker and the farmer. There has been a good deal of discussion of a very useless nature and some people have tried to create the impression that the advent of organisation and trade unionism amongst agricultural workers represents the interference of the city mind into rural life. That is only one of the arguments used, in my view, to keep agricultural workers in their present lowly condition. Since the advent of trade unionism amongst agricultural workers, far from its having a detrimental effect from the point of view of either the worker or the farmer, it has been found in practice to have a most beneficial effect. Any employer in any industry who has any intelligence at all must realise that a worker who is not fairly treated will not be a satisfactory worker. Nowadays, the accent is on increased production and particularly increased agricultural production. It is something we all want to see. How are we to get any kind of satisfactory conditions in which to bring about that increased production if these men are to be left in their present position?

This is only one of the measures which, I believe, should be taken to elevate the farm labourer to a more satisfactory plane. I see no reason in the world—in fact, I am convinced that it is a great injustice that it should be so—why unskilled labourers in our towns and cities should work ten and 12 hours a week less than the agricultural labourer and should get twice the wages the agricultural labourer gets, without having one-third of the skill and knowledge the agricultural labourer must have to discharge his job effectively. There are trades which can be learned in a year, in three years, in five years or in seven years, but the agricultural labourer is still learning up to the time he goes down into the grave. He is learning all his life and the wealth of knowledge of his job which he must have is ill-rewarded in this country at present.

I hope this Bill will be very fully discussed, and I put it forward for the consideration of the House, as I said before, primarily on the plea of justice for men who are at present not being justly treated. Whatever argument may be brought against it, no Deputy, I am sure, will try to prove that it is something which should not be given, and I hope that Deputies of all Parties will agree with me that the time is long overdue when this very small concession, which will mean nothing, or very little, in terms of cash or financial imposition upon the farmers but which will mean a great deal to agricultural workers—they can finish their work at lunch time on Saturday and devote their afternoon, as does every other civilised person in the world of the working-class type, to the performance of the ordinary household duties which require to be done or the obtaining of domestic requirements—should be given in ordinary common justice to men who have very little protection other than the protection which can be given to them by law as passed by this Parliament.

Mr. Cogan

I move the amendment which stands on the Order Paper in my name:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:—"Dáil Éireann declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill pending a substantial increase in the net agricultural income and in the volume of agricultural output."

I feel that it is unnecessary to state at the outset that I, as a small farmer, have the deepest sympathy with the agricultural workers. I have lived amongst them all my life. I have trotted with the children of the worker bare-footed to school as a small boy. I have worked side by side with them in the fields during the greater part of my life. I know that the agricultural worker endures a low standard of living and a low standard of income. My opposition to the Bill is based on the fact that we have to be realistic. We have to realise that this Bill extends still further the principle of compulsion to the agricultural community. The Minister for Agriculture has stated on a number of occasions that he would never again allow an inspector to cross a farmer's fence, unless invited to do so by the farmer. Under this Bill, inspectors will continue to cross the farmer's fence and dictate to him and the worker what particular hours of work they are to operate. That is the principle which is unnecessary and undesirable in agriculture, having regard to the wide variety of conditions under which farmers and farm workers live.

Mr. Corry

On a point of order, has this Bill been seconded?

Acting-Chairman (Mr. Halliden)

It is presumed to be seconded.

Mr. P.D. Lehane

I formally second.

Mr. Connolly

I was about to do so when Deputy Cogan was called on.

Acting-Chairman (Mr. Halliden)

It is an Order of the Day. It need not be formally seconded.

Mr. P.D. Lehane

Do I gather that Deputy Connolly wishes formally to second?

Acting-Chairman

It is not necessary. It need not be seconded. Deputy Cogan's amendment must be seconded.

Mr. Cogan

This Bill, if enacted, will provide that each farmer will have to make a minimum sacrifice of at least £13 per year, or 5/- per week. Spread over all the employees in the agricultural industry, that would amount to over £1,400,000, or roughly £1,500,000. That is the sum of money this Bill will cost the agricultural industry, and, while it will cost the individual farmer a minimum of £13 and the agricultural industry approximately £1,500,000, it will not put one red halfpenny into the pocket of the agricultural worker. That is the first fact that has to be considered. The agricultural worker's income is admittedly low, but this Bill will not raise his income. It may give him a little more leisure in which to expend, as Deputy Dunne pointed out, the small income he enjoys at present. It will add nothing to his existing income and I think that, fundamentally, we should be aiming at doing something to raise the agricultural worker's income rather than tackling this question of reducing the working hours.

Deputy Dunne, I think, did not get down to a very serious consideration of this Bill. Both last week and to-day his speech reminded me of the empty billowing and flapping of a nightshirt on a clothes' line. There was very little weight or substance in the arguments he advanced; very little weight or substance in his comparison between the agricultural worker and other types of employees. If you apply the argument that the farm worker is as much entitled to a reduced working week as the industrial worker, why not go a step further and say that both farm workers and industrial workers should be given Civil Service hours, a still further reduction? If the 54-hour week is too long for the agricultural worker, is not the 50-hour or 48-hour week too long for the industrial worker? Why not give them the 40-hour week, the same as many of our office workers? We could push this argument along that line and it would carry us nowhere.

Fundamentally, the fact is that the whole volume of agricultural output is altogether too low. The output per man-hour is too low. It must be raised, and until we raise the output per man-hour we cannot tackle this problem of reducing the length of the man-week. In industry, we know that the reduction of the working week followed but did not anticipate the increase in the volume of output per man-hour. In industry, the volume of output per man was stepped up rapidly to an extraordinary extent by the introduction of machinery. We have been and are introducing improved machinery into the agricultural industry. But our progress towards increased production will be slow and difficult. We may move forward slowly and steadily, but it will take a long time before the increase in the volume of output in agriculture will be anything to compare with the increase in industry. Any Deputy who has any connection with farming knows that in agriculture you are not dealing with an inanimate thing as in industry. You are dealing with living animals and growing plants. You cannot completely mechanise all agricultural processes. No machine will lay an egg or give birth to a calf. The farming industry has to keep to a certain extent closer to nature than industry can. Therefore, this comparison between agriculture and industry is unreal.

We have only got to realise that notwithstanding all the efforts made for the past three or four years, the volume of agricultural output is only 2 per cent. higher than in 1938 and until we can force the volume of agricultural output up we have to be careful about restricting the hours of work. We are going with outstretched hands to the great republic of the west seeking and obtaining loans which are being given to us on the understanding that we will increase agricultural output. Does anyone think this measure is calculated to achieve that object? If it were possible for every farmer, the small farmer who employs one man just the same as the farmer who employs ten, to comply with this, he would have to employ additional labour on his farm and thereby carry additional cost. From what source is that additional cost to be obtained?

There are two ways in which the farmer can comply with this Bill. He can either employ additional labour or reduce output by reducing the working on his farm. He must either increase his cost or reduce his output. If he increases his cost, from what source is he to obtain the income to cover that increased cost? Can he pass this burden on to the consumer? If he does, we know the outcry we will have about the increased cost of living. We know that, in present circumstances, it is extremely difficult to pay an increased price for agricultural output. It is questionable whether, in our present economic set-up, it is desirable to have any very substantial increase in the price of foodstuffs which would be necessary to finance this Bill. We know what would happen if the cost of living went up still higher. Immediately we would have a demand for higher wages and, again, we would have the vicious spiral of wages and prices chasing each other upwards towards a complete collapse. Everyone will agree that that is not a desirable situation. On the other hand, is there not a danger that this Bill may lead to a slackening down of production by farmers relying, not on dairy cows and the raising of young stock but on dry stock? That is another undesirable result which may very possibly flow from this Bill. All the time, we must realise that our whole economic existence depends on our ability to secure an increase in agricultural output.

I have mentioned in my amendment that it is necessary to achieve some increase in agricultural income before this Bill can be made operative and compulsory on the country. Do Deputies realise that the present income of each person engaged on the land, the farmer and his adult sons and daughters working with him on the farm, is less than £3 10s. 0d. per week? That is the average income. There is no escaping the figure. We know the total number of people working on the land and the net value of agricultural output. Therefore, we know how much money there is to be distributed amongst the farming community. We know that they are not in a position to bear an increased burden unless they can pass it on to the consumer, with the very uncomfortable results for other sections of the community which must inevitably follow. Therefore, I say that this Bill ought not to be enacted and that we ought to set our minds very definitely and rigorously towards raising the standard and status of the agricultural worker by other means. When I mentioned publicly that there are other concessions which could be given to the agricultural worker, Deputy Dunne challenged me to name these concessions. I immediately pointed out that one of the first and most important concessions which ought to be made to the lowly-paid workers in this country, having regard to the high cost of living, is an increase in the children's allowance. An increase of 1/- per week would not be very much, but it would be of immense benefit to the struggling agricultural worker with a family. The inclusion of all children under 16 years would also be a tremendous benefit to the agricultural worker. In that way it would be possible to benefit the agricultural worker, particularly the worker with a family, very considerably, without adding to the costs of production in agriculture.

There is one very important "must" in agricultural policy and in economic policy, and that is that we must get down the cost of producing food as well as we can. That is why I say that, instead of adding to the farmer's costs, as in this Bill, without benefiting the worker, we should give the worker a definite benefit such as would be implied in children's allowances. That, in my opinion, is the first and most important step towards putting the agricultural worker on a better footing in society.

I realise that the time allowed for the consideration of this Bill is very limited and I do not want to delay the House unduly, but, in addition to providing increased children's allowances there are other ways in which a substantial benefit could be conferred on the agricultural worker. There are farmers in this country who give their workers such benefits as free milk or milk at a very low price. All farmers should try to do that service for the men who are working for them on the land. In the same way, there are farmers who could supply firewood or turf to their workers at a low price. Further, farmers, owning as they do, tractors and horses, could help their workers to cultivate their plots and, where necessary, provide additional allotments on their land for the growing of vegetables.

I put forward these suggestions because I consider that there is a need for the continuance of that close cooperation and mutual help between the farmer and the worker which has always existed amongst the best agricultural employers and workers. I do not consider that it is a matter of charity on the part of the farmer to help his workers in the ways I have suggested. It is a matter of justice. I hold very strongly to the principle of justice for all sections of the community. Since the farmer has essentials which the labourer, if he does not get them from the farmer, has to purchase at the retail price, he should, as a good employer, give his worker the benefit of these essentials. He should help them in the cultivation of their land by loaning horses or, if necessary, tractors. He should let them have turbary or turf or firewood at a cheap rate. Another thing which the good farmer almost invariably does and which every farmer should do is to give every worker a full week's work in spite of weather conditions. Every farmer should endeavour to find indoor work for his men during wet weather, so that the worker will have a full week's wages every week unless he desires to remain at home. Every worker who presents himself for work at the farmer's place, irrespective of weather conditions, should be given a full week's employment.

These are concessions which the farmer should make to the worker and they would not cost him anything except, possibly, a little inconvenience now and then. They would ensure a larger measure of goodwill between the farmer and the worker. They would raise the worker's real income by lowering his costs. Instead of having to go to the shop and buying some commodities at the retail price, the worker would be able to buy at a lower price. Instead of buying coal at a high price, he would have cheap fuel supplied to him by the farmer, and instead of having to hire horses or to dig his plot with a spade, he would have the use of the farmer's horses. The farmer should make these concessions to the worker in the interest of the industry. I think it is wrong that a man should be told that he must work only a certain number of hours per week. Deputy Dunne has said that every civilised person in the world enjoys a half-holiday. He must be under the impression that the farmers and the farmers' wives and sons are not civilised because they have never enjoyed a regular weekly half-holiday.

The House ought to put the most important things first. If we are to help the agricultural worker, we ought to help him in such a way as to raise his real standard of living without reducing the hours of work or the output of the agricultural industry. Later on, when science, invention, the progress of mechanisation and increased knowledge in agricultural science will have succeeded in raising the volume of agricultural output—when we have surmounted the serious national problem that faces us in regard to the balance of external payments, we can consider agricultural working hours. I think that that time has not yet arrived. Therefore, I suggest that we wait until the volume of agricultural output has substantially increased and until there is sufficient income available to the farming community to enable them to make this concession.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

I second the amendment which was moved by Deputy Cogan and I reserve my remarks until later.

Mr. Corry

On a point of order. Is the discussion of this Bill in order seeing that it has not been seconded?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think that question has been answered.

Mr. Smith

Properly.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Does Deputy O'Reilly intend to speak?

Mr. Smith

Later.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy O'Reilly must speak now. He cannot reserve his speech on an amendment. The Deputy could do so on a motion, but he may not do so on an amendment. He must make his statement when he seconds.

Mr. Smith

Just fire away now.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

I was not aware that I could not reserve my speech. I wanted to see the drift of the debate and to hear the points that would be raised so that I might say something on them. However, I must conform with the procedure and must do the best I can.

While supporting the amendment, I do not want to be taken as being in any way hostile to the proposal to give a half-holiday to agricultural workers. I have never advocated low conditions for the agricultural worker. I hope I never will. There were some points made by Deputy Dunne in introducing the Bill with which I entirely agree. He said it was not just that the agricultural worker should be singled out and should not get the same conditions as the industrial worker. I am in entire agreement. He also said that he could not understand how an agricultural labourer could exist on an income of £3 a week and provide for a family. With that also I am in agreement.

The only point of consideration with me in connection with any of these issues is: is there any proof that the agricultural industry gives the average working farmer an income of £3 a week? The average income of all those engaged in working farms is only £3 10s. a week. The income of some must be very much in excess of £3 10s. a week. That applies, for instance, to those who engage in bloodstock breeding and the production of pedigree live stock. That is a very highly specialised industry, involving a considerable amount of overhead expenses and speculative expenses. If such persons had to live on the average income they would be out of business at a very early stage. Therefore, it must be admitted that the average working farmer producing goods which are included in the cost-of-living index must be in receipt of a very much lower income than the guaranteed minimum weekly wage of £3 of his labourer. Therefore, I hold that there is an attempt still more to crush the working farmer and his family by imposing further obligations on anyone compelled to employ a labourer.

The mentality of those outside the agricultural industry appears to be that results obtained, no matter by what means, are justified. So long as agricultural produce comes on the market and sufficient food is provided to maintain those in the cities and towns, who have very much better conditions of living than the agricultural labourer or even his employer—shorter hours, annual holidays, half-holidays, insurance benefits and social benefits— it is taken as a matter of course that the price for such goods is sufficient to cover the cost of production. I hold that that is not the case. The bulk of agricultural production is the result of unpaid family labour. The farmer employs his children from the time they are six or seven years of age to do some work on the farm. Therefore, the fact that agricultural goods come on the market is no proof that the price obtained for it covered the cost of production at the minimum rate of wage guaranteed by the Agricultural Wages Act. Those farmers who have not family labour and are compelled to employ labour are being crushed between the upper and nether millstone. They are compelled to give a fixed minimum wage even if they employ one workman. They are compelled to give him an annual holiday, to pay national health insurance contributions and employer's liability insurance. The present proposal, as Deputy Cogan pointed out, would add another £13 a year to the cost of the worker.

What guarantee has the farmer when he is selling his produce? The price for the vast bulk of it is governed by the export market price. If that price is low, he must sell on the home market regardless of the cost of production. For instance, the proposal for the coming year is that the farmer must sell his eggs at 2/- a dozen, for the simple reason that the British Minister of Food will not give any higher price than that. Is there any prospect then that on the home market the farmer will get the 3/- a dozen that he enjoyed in 1948? As I say, the farmer is crushed between the upper and nether millstone. His costs of production are increased. His prices are not even maintained, much less increased in accordance with the increased charges on his industry.

There has been a good deal of discussion about justice but I claim that in this connection there is scope for the application of justice all round. To what extent is it being done?

It is only natural that this proposal to ameliorate the conditions of the agricultural workers should come from a Labour Deputy, a Deputy who has interested himself in the organisation of agricultural workers. On the other hand, what evidence have we—at least in my experience in this House—that Labour Deputies in general are prepared to back any proposal for increased prices for agricultural produce so as to enable the employing farmer to get the cost of production—in other words, to give the producing farmer the minimum wage that the law compels him to pay to labourers?

Let me take one instance, milk prices. There was a motion introduced by Deputy Cogan and myself last Spring to increase the price paid to the farmer for his milk at creameries on account of the increased cost of production over the past couple of years by reason of the increase of 10/- a week in wages, increased rates on the land, increased national health insurance and increased employers' liability insurance, as a result of increased benefits granted by an Act passed in this House in 1948 whereby an agricultural worker, if he met with an accident, was entitled to higher benefits than he had been receiving hitherto. To meet all those increases we moved a motion to increase the price the farmer would get for his milk. The Labour Deputies almost without exception walked into the Division Lobby to vote against that motion. Those who did not vote against it certainly did not vote for it. They had an opportunity there to mete out justice, but that opportunity was evaded by the Labour Deputies.

Mr. Smith

And so did the farmer Deputies.

Mr. Corry

What happened some of the farmer Deputies?

Mr. P. O'Reilly

Can anyone dispute my assertion that the average working farmer has not the income to enable him to pay the wage he is compelled by law to give the labourer? We put another motion before the House during the Spring and the proposal there was an experimental farm for the purpose of accurately ascertaining the cost of production, the amount that the agricultural producer—the working farmer—would have to get to produce any commodity on his land. In this case also the Labour Deputies voted against it. In face of that, how can farmer Deputies stand idly by and allow increased burdens to be put on the agricultural producer without insisting on a corresponding increase in the price he gets for his produce in order to enable him to live?

I have yet to meet a farmer who will object to improving the conditions of his labourer provided he can afford to do it, but the evidence is not there that it is possible for him to do it, and until that is done I think Deputies should vote against the Second Reading of this Bill. Until the time comes, whether by increased output per man hour or reduced costs or higher prices for our produce—any one of these three methods—I think a proposal of this kind is more or less heading for disaster; it is putting the last straw on the camel's back, if you like, to continue to put burdens on the agricultural producer without providing means for him to meet those increased charges. I wish to second the amendment proposed by Deputy Cogan.

Deputy Kyne rose.

Mr. Smith

Are we not likely to get a statement from the Government as to their attitude on this measure?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has no power in that respect.

Mr. Smith

It seems strange.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has no function in that matter.

Mr. Corish

The discussion is not confined to three hours.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No it is not.

Mr. Smith

Even if it is not—

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Smith knows the Chair has no power to do anything in the matter.

Mr. Smith

I am not suggesting that it has, but we should have a statement from the Government.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has made his point.

Mr. Kyne

I wish to support this Bill. I feel that an excellent case has been made by Deputy Dunne. I was interested listening to Deputy Cogan speaking against it and I was anxious to hear what points he would put up. I am afraid, although he gave us a long contribution, he did not give us anything very positive as to why the half-holiday should not be given. He claimed that production would suffer and I hope to deal with that matter in a few moments.

I think any fair-minded Deputy will agree that the agricultural worker, whether a farmer or a farm labourer, is a key-worker. It is the main industry in this country. It is the essence of production when you apply manpower to raw materials and produce something, such as agricultural commodities. We produce from the earth and we give something to humanity. During the emergency and at other times when it suited, the agricultural worker was described as the front line of defence, as the skilled man, the man worthy of support. We feel these things are true and we feel that he is as much entitled to a half-day as his industrial colleagues.

I have anticipated a number of points that I thought would be made against the Bill. One of them is that the farmer could not afford to pay the extra few shillings. If it is said that five shillings a week per agricultural worker will bring any farmer to disaster, it has been proved beyond yea or nay in County Dublin and County Westmeath, where the agricultural workers are organised and where they have secured a half-holiday, that there was no disaster brought on the farmers there. We will equally find, if this Bill is passed, that the farmers will continue to prosper, as they are at present. I trust that that prosperity will continue.

The half-holiday for agricultural workers was introduced in County Waterford in 1922, and was continued for a number of years. Some 12 months ago when the Agricultural Wages Board gave an increase it was understood throughout the country that it was for a 50-hour week. Practically every farmer in my county and adjacent counties gave a half-holiday in the belief that it was then the law. It was not until they found out some months later that that was not the case that they decided they could not possibly do it. If this Bill is passed, I feel that it can easily be carried out.

As regards loss of production, Deputy Cogan made his point, but I would draw his attention and the attention of other Deputies to this fact, that contented workers are the men who produce most. To my knowledge as a trade union official production is in direct ratio to the contented state of mind of the worker. If you have a discontented worker you will not have satisfactory production. If these workers get a half-day, if they feel they are on the same status as other human beings, they will give of their best, and the farmer who will concede the half-day to his worker will find that during the week, whether it is a 48-hour or a 50-hour week, he will get back more than he has given. That is a thing that the industrialists of this and many other countries are beginning to realise and act upon. Cows have to be milked every day and they must be milked on the half-day as well as on ordinary days. That is a very common statement, but is it not possible that where there are two or more employees on a farm they could arrange so that there would always be someone left to milk the cows? Is it not possible, on a farm on which there is only one employee, that the farmer and his man could arrange between them so that the man would get at least one half-day in the week? Surely on such a farm, with so small a labour content, the number of cows cannot be so big as to make it impossible to have such an arrangement for milking, either by the farmer or his son or someone else? If there is need for more men, surely they should have been employed. I believe there is nothing in the objections raised but just a feeling that this is something extra. If the farmer believed that this Bill is just what it is —meant in the interest of the farmer and his family, as well as of the worker —there would be no objections raised to its passage through this House.

Another point raised is that this is a trade union function, that it should not be brought up in the House at all, that it should be secured by the old-time method of disputes and strikes or by agreement. But surely, if that is true, it is equally true to say that the question of the wages the farmer should pay his men is a trade union function, and it is also true to say that the annual holiday question is a trade union function? Is it not also true of almost every section of the community that we have had legislation for conditions and hours and half-days, even though they are covered and well organised into trade unions? I believe that we are laying down minimum rules and that it is the trade union function, not to secure the minimum but to secure the maximum. I suggest that Deputies allow this Bill ta pass its Second Reading and that if there is an amendment worthy of consideration it will be accepted, if it is in the spirit that we wish it to be in. Then, no longer will the agricultural worker be the Cinderella of industry, but he will be a respectable man with rights the same as every other industrial worker. By that means we will win back to the land the people who have deserted it and no longer will we hear of the "Flight from the Land".

Mr. P.D. Lehane

I feel very much as Deputy Dunne feels in regard to the agricultural workers. I believe they are the greatest national asset we have and that they are underpaid and not getting the facilities to which they are entitled. However, it seems to me that Deputy Dunne and the Labour Party are talking with their tongues in their cheeks when they are talking about better facilities for agricultural workers, while at the same time they make every endeavour to prevent agricultural producers from getting a decent price for their produce. I believe that agricultural workers—farmers, farmers' sons and employees—are the people who keep this country going. It is wrong to segregate one section from the other and wrong to ask the employees, the farmers-employer and his sons and daughters to work for a wage which, owing to the present agricultural prices, they cannot afford to pay to their employees. To get out of the dilemma, there will have to be a remuneration for farmers, their sons and their workers, that will enable everybody engaged in agriculture to have a decent standard of living.

I have said before that I do not believe that agricultural workers have been paid anything like what they should be paid, having regard to their contribution to the national economy. However, that is not the farmer's fault: it is partly the fault of the Deputies of this House, who decided that agricultural produce must obtain the lowest possible rate, while those who produce luxury articles can have any profit they like. We are asked to produce milk at 1/2 a gallon and there is a suggestion that that is to be reduced by 2d. Cows must be milked regularly and the milk put into cans and delivered to the creamery or factory. At the same time, one may dish out lemonade in bottles at 6d. a half pint and there is no inspector going around to see the amount of bacteria in lemonade. The unfortunate farmer has to be up at six o'clock in the morning to produce the milk at 1/2 a gallon, with the threat that it will be reduced to 1/-.

The members of the Labour Party are speaking with their tongues in their cheeks and are shedding crocodile tears for the agricultural worker. They will go into the Lobby and vote against any increase for the producer of that particularly nutritious commodity and they will not have the slightest reaction against the excessive profits made by those producing luxury commodities. I agree thoroughly with Deputy Dunne that the agricultural worker, whether he be farmer's son, farmer or agricultural worker, is not getting a fair crack of the whip in this agricultural country; but that is due to the horrible urban mentality we have in this House directing everything. It is not confined to the present Government—though they are largely responsible for it—but the previous Government was more responsible for it. They tried to drag everything from the country up to Dublin. This Government also has done the same. They will not let us have an airfield in Cork and they are trying to take our Dairy Institute from Cork to Dublin. They will not let us do anything in the country. They will not let us have a shipyard.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is travelling a bit now.

Mr. P.D. Lehane

I am just pointing out the position of the agricultural community. They have not got a fair crack of the whip from any Government that existed since 1922 and the sooner we get a majority in this Dáil from Cork the better.

Mr. Connolly

The case for this Bill, which I cordially recommend to the House, is not to be based on economics at all and certainly not on the orthodox Victorian economics which half-strangled Deputy Cogan in his attempt to enunciate them here this evening. This is a matter of equity; this is a matter of ethics; this is a matter of morals; this is a matter of social progress. This piece of legislation, which Deputy Dunne, the mover of the Bill, said would be left to a free vote, depends for its success on the social conscience of the individual members of the House.

Mr. Smith

Who authorised him to announce a free vote?

Mr. Davin

Does it disturb you?

Mr. Connolly

I have no responsibility whatever for the statement.

Mr. Smith

It is very interesting.

Mr. Davin

You were never free.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Connolly.

Mr. Connolly

When Deputy Dunne made that statement, the ex-Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Smith, took no exception to it. Evidently it had not much force.

Mr. Smith

It registered all right.

Mr. Connolly

If Deputy Smith had allowed me to proceed he, I think, would have been in complete sympathy with my remarks. I was about to lament, though lament is scarcely strong enough—I was about to criticise adversely the Fine Gael Party in having only one member of their Party here during the presentation of the case for the Bill. I was about to point out the fact that on a Bill such as this, which will be left to a free vote of the House, the only appeal that could be made would have to be made to the individual conscience of the individual members. Yet, not one member, except Deputy Lehane, of the Fine Gael Party has seen fit to grace the benches for the presentation of this case. Now the Minister for Agriculture has deserted his bench; as the American say: "He has taken a run-out powder."

Mr. P.D. Lehane

Would you differentiate between the two Deputy Lehane's?

Mr. Connolly

I was referring to Deputy P.D. Lehane.

Mr. P.D. Lehane

Would Deputy Connolly say which Deputy Lehane belongs to the Party he mentioned?

Mr. Connolly

I apologise to Deputy Lehane. I am now informed that there is not even one member of the Fine Gael Party in the House and not one of them has seen fit to grace the benches in order to listen to the presentation of the case for a half-holiday for farm labourers. I hope that the Minister for Justice, who has most appropriately arrived, will live up to his name as Minister for Justice, real justice to the farm labourer as well as to every other member of the community, and ensure that this case is presented with all the force he has to the other members of his Party.

To whom are we to appeal? We have to appeal to the members of Clann na Talmhan, to the sympathy of the members of Clann na Poblachta which, I am sure, we have; and we have to appeal to Fianna Fáil, the members of the Opposition Party. Let me remind the members of the Opposition and, in particular, let me remind Deputy Smith, that on a certain occasion when there was some cross-talk here with the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Lemass assured us on that occasion that in any case where the Labour Party brought forward measures relating to social welfare, of importance to the working classes, and measures for the success of which that Party had to rely upon the goodwill of the House, the members of his Party would be actively in support of any such legislation. I think he further said that the members of the Labour Party should take courage and not permit themselves to be in any way amenable to intimidation from the major Party in Government. If that is the case, and I am perfectly certain that Deputy Lemass means what he says and will bear out his words in deeds and acts, I think the case made by Deputy Dunne should recommend itself to him and that he should realise that this is a measure of social justice in relation to the social welfare of a very deserving section of the community. I do not base that on any of the tommy-rot that I have heard about farm labourers requiring this as a measure of social justice because they are the lowest paid section of the community. Irrespective of whether they are the lowest paid or the highest paid, they are still entitled to a half-day.

The arguments put forward by those in favour of the amendment with regard to the average income of the average farmer are completely beside the point. The average farmer is not employing a farm labourer. The average farmer is not giving a half-day per week to his farm labourers. If people look at this from the proper point of view and with a proper understanding of economics, they should appreciate, if they want to enter into the field of economics, the economic effects which the measure will have. We hope that this measure will be brought to fruition with the help of the progressive members of the Fianna Fáil Party, the progressive members of the Clann na Talmhan, Clann na Poblachta and the Labour Party. What will be its economic effects? It will adversely affect those who employ a lot of labour and it will be favourable to those who employ no labour because it will place another burden on the competitors of the small farmers. We are always hearing about the farmers. The people who talk about the average farmer and this mythical sum of £3 10s. od. per week or £166 per year fail to realise that there is no such thing as an average farmer. Farmers come into certain groups according to their poor law rating and their income and the groups have separate and antagonistic interests. A large farmer has not the same interests as a small farmer, particularly in the western areas. He is more allied in his tastes, outlook, philosophy, upbringing and the manner in which he educates his children to the industrialist and the capitalist, to those running the big mills, the factories and the workshops, than he is to the small farmer from whom most of us have had our origin. People talk here about the urban mentality. They say that Dublin controls everything. They accuse us of being all Dublinmen. There is no such thing as a Dublinman. If our fathers were not from the country, then our grandfathers were. We all bear the mark of the peasant. Even the Minister for Agriculture, who has just returned to the House, would probably thank God for that. It would be a very difficult task in this small State so to urbanise our mentality that we could forget the claims of the rural community, particularly that section of it which is interested in this Bill.

A measure like this, which depends upon the goodwill of legislators, is in advance of its time from the point of view of economics. Let us candidly admit that. Legislation lags behind actuality. We are to-night trying to work a miracle and we are asking Fianna Fáil to help us to work that miracle. We are asking them to come to our aid in our endeavour to pass this Bill. I am talking now to the progressive members. I am not talking to the reactionary members in Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Corry

Is the honeymoon over now?

Mr. Connolly

Let us have a combination of those who are progressive in this House. Let Deputy Smith show how progressively-minded he is by lining up with the Labour Party on this. When the Labour Party finds that Deputy Smith has some progressive legislation on foot we will reciprocate that feeling. That is a fair offer. Deputy Lemass made a fair offer before in regard to social welfare. He said not to be afraid to bring forward any such measures as they would always command the support of the Fianna Fáil Party. Let us have that co-operation and that understanding of this rural mentality. We all know that we never can expect the mass of agricultural labourers to have the striking power that industrial labour has, or the force necessary to bring about a much needed amelioration of their conditions. It is for that reason Deputy Dunne and the members of the Labour Party want the other Parties to aid them in this, and so make the path a bit easier for the agricultural labourers as well as to get over the anxiety, doubt and distrust that is in the minds of farmers. Mind you, that is all there is to it. If Deputies look back over the history of any scheme of importance that has been put before the sections of the public concerned, they will find that there was the same form of opposition in regard to it as that which emanated from Deputy Cogan and Deputy P. O'Reilly to-night. These Deputies did not quite predict the bankruptcy of the whole farming community if this proposal were put into effect, but they did remind the House of the old days when the shopkeepers and their assistants worked long hours, when shops remained open to a very late hour on Saturday nights, and when some opened on Sunday. That sort of general mentality has been portrayed in the novels of H.G. Wells and others. It is now exhibited by those who purport to represent the interests of the farmers, that the longer the hours worked the greater will be the productivity of the industry concerned.

Mr. McQuillan

Shops do not produce anything.

Mr. Connolly

They serve an essential need for the community. We were told a moment ago that agriculture deals not with inanimate things. You have human beings in shops, farms, factories and workshops. The argument used to be that it was only by working them long hours, from the days of their infancy almost until they went to their graves, that industry could maintain itself, and could be in any way comfortable for the capitalists engaged in industry. We now have the same mentality intruding itself into the agricultural field. Instead of having an urbanisation of our mentality we are having a ruralisation of it. We all remember when restrictions were introduced against the working of long hours in the coal-mining industry in England, and the furore that was created when an attempt was made to stop the employment of children in that industry under ten years of age. The opponents of such proposals said that the industry would be made bankrupt if they were not allowed to employ children of tender years. That has been the attitude all through the ages when any attempt was made to bring about an amelioration of the conditions of the working classes. The case always made was that it would be impossible to do it, that it would create disorder and in some way would impede progress in the industry concerned.

When that argument was not used, the other argument was, that the time was inopportune to bring about the desired reform. We find the same attitude on this Bill in the amendment that has been proposed, that the implementation of the half-holidays should wait until such time as the rate of agricultural production has increased, and the cost of production has been lowered. I think it was in a public speech at Carlingford that the Minister for Agriculture made the best presentation of this case that could possibly be made, if the case for it is to be founded on economics, because he showed how the productivity of the country has increased. I have not the data with me, but the Minister showed from figures he gave how there had been a considerable increase in most spheres of agriculture. That should encourage Deputy Cogan to change his line of policy if he really believes in the economic basis.

The opposition to this proposal is not, most Deputies believe, on the economic basis at all. The opponents of it want to get their heels in, to dig them in against any attempt at having social progress in this country. To continue to argue as to why agricultural labourers should have a couple of hours less work would lead nowhere. It can be proved that in countries somewhat similar to our own, where they have up-to-date agriculture and the highest and most intensive cultivation of the land, farm labourers are better paid, are better organised and have better hours than they have in this country. The argument for this should be on an ethical and moral basis. It should be based on a sense of equity.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

Social justice.

Mr. Connolly

Let us have social justice for all the members of our community. We know that social reformers have had to carry on a long fight to win any measure of social justice. When they did so legislatures were prepared to make laws to give effect to various social reforms. We are asking the House to obviate that phase in the case of our national industry. We are asking Deputies in all parts of the House to take courage from the fact which Deputy Dunne has mentioned that, for the last four years in the County Dublin, they have been operating this idea of a half holiday for farm workers, and not to the detriment of the industry or of the farmers. During those four years the farm labourers in County Dublin have enjoyed that little measure of social progress. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.