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.