There are a few points I wish to make to-night and there are a few matters which have been mentioned here upon which I have made a note. Some Deputies referred to the fact of the increase in wages and also drew attention to the fact that, side by side with that increase, agricultural workers are now getting a week's holidays.
It is true that since the advent of the present Government increased wages have been given to farm workers. It is equally true that farm workers will now, please God, enjoy what they had never hoped to enjoy before the advent of the present Government —a week's holidays. Because they will be getting this week's holiday and also because they got an increase of 5/- a week a good while back, Deputies may say that we are putting an added burden on the farmers to the extent of the few shillings involved in giving a half-holiday per week to the worker. Naturally enough we are entitled on the other hand to draw attention to the other side of the picture, and to say, without fear of contradiction, that if the wage of the farm worker is to be considered in its entirety, and if the question of the week's holiday is to be brought too far, the one worker above all others that was treated in a most careless and disgraceful fashion in the past was the farm labourer. There are Deputies who have been in this House for the last 25 or 26 years but I think that not even the oldest Deputy can stand up and say openly that the farm worker was ever properly paid. The farmer, even in times of prosperity, failed to realise his obligations in so far as his workers were concerned. We can also say that when the farmer had a bad day the whole world knew it but when the farmer got an increase in prices and enjoyed a greater meed of security, no one would be told of the added benefits the farmer was getting. Least of all, would the farm worker be told.
The present rate of £3 per week fixed by the Agricultural Wages Board is by no means sufficient to entitle us to say to the farm workers that because of that wage we cannot ask the farmer to carry the extra burden of a few shillings a week represented by a weekly half-holiday.
The Minister mentioned that £3 a week was the minimum wage. That is correct, but as I have told the Minister it is futile for us to imagine that even a small percentage of the farm workers are getting more than £3. It is correct that in certain regions farm workers may be getting more than that, but I say here openly, that not alone in South Cork for which I happen to be one of the Deputies, but in many parts of County Cork and adjoining counties, the truth is that there is a good percentage of these workers not getting even £3. I know that the Minister's answer may be why I do not report it, but we have to face everyday life as we know it. I know of many instances of farm workers who are married and who have young families and who have certain obligations to these families. Because a labourer happens to be living in a labourer's cottage in a certain district and has no hope of getting a cottage in some other locality, he cannot get security and a genuine wage in his own area. Through the Chair, may I remind the Minister that I am not dealing with fancies, that there have been instances where personally I had the responsibility and acted up to it of reporting a case where the minimum wage was not being paid. Unfortunately, the result was that no farmer in that parish would employ the man concerned afterwards. Of course, the old law of supply and demand had something to say to it. The supply was greater than the demand and so long as the supply is greater than the demand in any part of the Twenty-Six Counties, farmers will definitely victimise a man because he asks for what he is entitled to, the minimum wage established by law.
May I mention one other difficulty to the Minister. In fairness to him I will give credit to the Minister for saying that he hoped that every farmer who could do so would give a half-day to the workers. Actually, the position less than two years ago was that many farmers were giving a half-day. They believed at that time that a half-day was compulsory, but when they found out that it was not compulsory, they at once stopped giving it. Travelling through the country we often listen to employers saying at present: "We cannot possibly give a half-day," well knowing that for months before they were giving a half-day. Very often it happens in the country that a man will hold out to see what his neighbour is going to do. I actually know of instances where farmers were blackmailed by some of their fellow-farmers because they were giving a half-day.
The point was also made that it would not be well to enact legislation of this character as it would be better to have this concession given as a result of discussion between representatives of farmers and the workers. I long ago gave expression to my view on that matter. It is an admirable suggestion, as I told the Minister, but admirable and all as it is, it will not work in many parts of the country— not because of any fault on the part of the workers or the representatives of the workers, but because the law demands in this country that before any group can negotiate with another group in labour matters it must have a negotiating licence. The farmers have not got the negotiating licence. We reminded them of the fact that they could get coverage from farmers in counties such as Dublin. The trouble in the South is that they have not got the negotiating licence, have no intention of getting a negotiating licence and refused to accept the suggestion that they should get coverage from any other county. We are, therefore, in the unfortunate position that they can say that they cannot discuss it because the law debars them. We are faced with that obstacle to a genuine discussion. It would be much easier for us if we could get the other representatives to sit at a conference table and to discuss the matter with us. I am telling the Minister now that he should not for one moment blame the workers or their representatives but the system.
Reference has been made to the handicap that the fluctuation of prices imposes on farmers. We have at all times made it clear that we are behind the farming community in their demands for a fair price for their produce. That is our policy because, when the farmers receive fair prices and fair profits, we can demand a fair proportion of those prices for the workers. Deputy Martin Corry, speaking on another occasion—not on this Bill; I notice he is not even in the House—pointed out that the farmers were in a terrible position, that they were at the mercy of middle men and handlers in buying fertilisers and other essential requirements. He suggested that farmers should be able to buy and sell at the world prices. Although at times it is supposed that we are opposed to the farmers and their demands, we agree with many of their demands, but we could never go so far as to support the claim that the farmer should sell at world market prices because it has often happened that, to suit other countries, to suit cartels and combines, world market prices were allowed to drop far below a fair and just level. We believe that the regulation of prices for agricultural produce should operate internally.
I will give credit again to the Minister for his approach in the matter of prices for agricultural produce. The regulation of prices must operate internally and must not depend on external markets or international markets.
I shall be as brief as I can because we must get this matter decided yes or no. I noticed to—day, in connection with certain questions that were put down, that one Deputy was very worried, perhaps he is justified, about the Border, across which our little pigs have been trotting hell for leather for some time past. I would ask Deputy Smith, through the Chair, does it ever dawn on him that that Border is not closed to human beings? Did it ever trouble him when agricultural workers had to cross that Border? Does it even trouble him now if he is hiding behind a ditch, a built-up border of his own and his Party, saying they cannot support the farm workers? We are more interested in human beings than in animals. Those of us who have our names to this Bill, and every member of our Party, are more interested in getting justice for the agricultural worker than other people may be who, when it suits their convenience, give lip service.
I understand that there will be a free vote on this matter. A free vote gives everyone the right to act according to his conscience and to express his views, a thing which did not exist in this House for many years up to two years and nine months ago. I would remind Deputy Smith that the farm workers across the Border, who may be handling the pigs that have been going over, have £4 8s. or £4 10s. a week, not £3, and that if the pigs do not arrive at the end of the 48-hour week the farm worker will not be there to receive them whereas on this side of the Border they would be expected to stick it out, and there would be no such thing as a half-holiday. We do not thank anyone in opposition for the fact that the farm workers have got a week's holiday. On one occasion I rejoiced in the spectacle of Deputies, who found pleasure time and time again in attacking the Minister for Agriculture and the agricultural policy of this Government, trotting into the lobby with that Minister saying "No" to the Labour members in connection with an amendment.
May I remind the spokesmen of the Opposition that I have in my possession the names of 14 members of the Opposition who are willing and anxious to support this Bill? If there is to be a free vote on this matter, let them give freedom to the members of their Party, let them for once be entitled to act according to the dictates of conscience, let them demonstrate that they can vote as they wish. I challenge Deputy Smith on that. Let him make up for his past misdeeds to-night. If they decide to abstain from voting, I will leave it to the farm workers of the Twenty-Six Counties to decide whether Fianna Fáil are for or against a half-holiday for farm workers.
