Having already spoken for two hours in support of this measure, I think it is time to summarise the points which I hope will appeal to the progressive members of the House in support of its being given a Second Reading. Before doing so, however, there is a contribution made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce in moving the Second Reading of the Bill we have been discussing which is well worth noting. I think it answers the amendment put down by Deputy Cogan more adequately than the figures at my command answered him when I was dealing with this point. I propose very briefly to refer to it and to relate it to this question of the increased productivity of the agricultural industry as one of the conditions on which this measure of social amelioration may be granted, according to the terms of the amendment.
The Parliamentary Secretary drew attention to the increase in the national income, a very substantial increase, which, in 1949, he said, amounted to £352,000,000. As a very considerable portion of this national income is due to agricultural activities, one can assume inferentially that there was a considerable increase in the income of the agricultural community, and that this was the result of increased productivity is abundantly evident from the further figures which the Parliamentary Secretary adduced. He says that the output of agriculture has been restored to the pre-war level and, in conjunction with that, there has been an unprecedented rise in the volume of industrial production. He gave the total number of people in non-agricultural activities as having increased by 60,000 over the 1946 figure. The obvious inference from that—and we know it from other sources-is that this indicates in some measure the transfer of rural workers to industrial activity and represents to some extent the proletarianisation of the rural community which has been going on increasingly.
What is the deduction from that? During the same period, agricultural productivity has been restored, he says, to the 1938 level, having dropped during the war years. In 1950, one may further see from his figures exports of all kinds have increased in volume by 10 per cent. as compared with 1949. They have almost reached the 1938 level, and, for the three months of this year ending September 30th, the volume of exports generally was 4 per cent. higher than the amount for the corresponding quarter of 1938. As the main bulk of our exports consists of agricultural produce, it is a quite fair assumption and quite correct from these figures that agricultural productivity has gone up. It has at least reached the 1938 level and probably has gone further.
If these figures and the inferences drawn from them are correct, we have, on one hand, an increase in the volume of exports and an increase in the quantity of agricultural products, and that is certainly proof positive that there has been what I argue could take place—and it was vehemently denied by Deputy Maguire, supported by Deputy O'Reilly and Deputy Cogan —that there could be an intensification of agricultural labour. If there was, as they admitted, a decrease in the number of farm labourers available, a decrease in the number of workers concerned in agricultural productivity, and if there was an increase in the volume of agricultural production, surely there must have been an intensification of that labour. That intensification would be spread over the unpaid family labour but would also affect the employed labour, the labour employed by the 47,000 farmers who alone are affected by this Bill.
To summarise, the Bill will not adversely affect the small farmers who are the chief concern of Deputy O'Reilly, because there are only 47,000 farmers over the whole country who employ labour, according to the figures given, who will be directly affected. Secondly, the Bill will not impose any greater burden of compulsion on the farmers than is imposed by any other legislative measure passed by this House for the benefit of the agricultural community, albeit the members of that community, as in this and other cases, in the first instance, always seem to resent and to protest against any such measure affecting their interests. Thirdly, the Bill will promote goodwill and co-operation between the classes affected, the agricultural labourers and the employing farmers. Fourthly, it will cause absolutely no increase in the wages' accounts of the farmers. To use Deputy Cogan's words, it will not cost the farmers a red penny. The 47,000 farmers who will be directly affected will require no increase in their wages' account and certainly in the case of the 500,000 self-employed farmers, the mass of unpaid family labour, as it is called, no one speaking on their behalf can say that giving farm labourers a half-holiday of four hours a week will remotely affect their labour costs. Fifthly, due to the increased goodwill obtained by the passing of this measure, there will be an increase in the output per man-hour on the part of the farm labourers. I have proved that it requires an intensification of labour only to the extent of something like 8 per cent. to maintain production in this restricted area of the agricultural community at the same level and, with goodwill on the part of the farm labourers, you will get increased productivity.
On the other hand, I might say, parenthetically, that if the Bill is not passed, if the House does not accede to this motion to give the farm labourers a half-holiday, there will be such a measure of frustration felt by these workers that, instead of goodwill you will have antagonism, and thereby you would achieve some of the tendencies towards a fall in the productivity of agricultural labour. If the desideratum of Deputy Cogan is to obtain increased productivity, I think the best way of ensuring that is by having co-operation between the two sections involved. That can only be done by giving this Bill a Second Reading.
The question of this Bill in any way influencing the cost of living has been, I think, adequately dealt with. It will not remotely influence the cost of living, because there can be no justification for passing on any imaginary increase for such a restricted area of commodities as that involved by the 47,000 farmers and the 100,000 farm labourers. Seventhly, that despite the weather vagaries, it is possible, as Deputy Cogan proved, to give the farm labourer a full week's employment of 50 hours. That can be done without undue inconvenience to the farmers.
Finally, to show that those who have certain views on this Bill that we who are supporting it are eminently reasonable, I may say that there appears to be fears entertained by some that the intention of the Bill would be to give a half-holiday to the farm labourers which would be anchored to a special day per week much in the same way as the Shops Act gives shop assistants a half-holiday on Wednesday or Saturday. I think it could be worked out during the later stages of this Bill, when we get over the Second Reading, that it is possible to regulate the giving of this half-holiday so that farmers will have the utmost convenience, that they will not be inconvenienced by it, always provided, of course, that the farm worker is paid for his half-holiday, and that he be not chased from pillar to post to suit the individual farmer. I think that could be a matter of agreement between the sections involved, and in certain areas involved.
This is not the end of all things for agriculture if this Bill is passed, or if it is not passed. If it is not passed, it will be one more milestone on the long road which the agricultural labourers have to fight in order to obtain better conditions, conditions comparable to those enjoyed by all other sections in this country.
A personal explanation may satisfy some of those who have been opposed to this Bill. It has a certain historic significance, and, therefore, I propose to make it. It has been put to me by Deputy Maguire, and others, that I do not happen to be a farm labourer or a member of the farming community, and that, therefore, I cannot speak with any authority on this question. I have defended that position by giving, as I conceived it, a logical exposition of the Bill and of its provisions. In reply to the arguments put forward by the Deputy I stated too that every one of us is closely and intimately associated with the agricultural community. But for an historic accident, I might have been more intimately associated with it than I am at present. My father, as those who are interested in Irish history will know, was the son of a small farmer in the beautiful vale of Annalore in the County Monaghan, a place with which Deputy Smith is quite familiar. His family were forced to leave their land in the bad old times. My father had to take up other occupations as a very young boy in the industrial City of Glasgow. He had no further connection with the land. The land which belonged to the Connolly family lay derelict until about 1913 when we were resident in Belfast. My father received some official communication which, in effect, meant that he could resume possession of this farm in the County Monaghan. At the same time, he received a telegram from Jim Larkin stating that the affairs of the Dublin strikers had come to a crisis and asking him to come down and help. My father was then placed in the dilemma of either regaining possession of the old homestead or of going to the aid of the Dublin workers. He chose to abandon his right to the farm in the County Monaghan in order that he might come down and aid the workers in Dublin. Having done that, it led to the raising of the Citizen Army and the Easter Week Rebellion. But for that, Deputy Corry and others as well as myself, might not have the privilege to-day of sitting in this Irish legislative Assembly. Had my father chosen to regain possession of that Irish homestead I might have been a small farmer's son and, perhaps, more competent to speak on this measure than I am.
