Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Dec 1962

Vol. 198 No. 5

Private Members' Business. - Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill, 1962—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Tully

As I said yesterday, the 1936 Act put a floor under agricultural workers' wages and the Agricultural Wages Board was set up in that year. The idea was originally introduced by the British Government in 1917 in the Corn Laws. The 1936 Act was almost an exact copy of the 1917 Act and gave the agricultural worker a basic rate of wages. With the adoption of that Act, the country had an enlightened method of providing wage-fixing machinery.

The establishment of the Wages Board in 1936 was undoubtedly a good idea, but more than a quarter of a century has since passed. We feel that the Wages Board is now an anachronism and that it has outlived its usefulness. Under the Labour Court, there has been devised a system of fixing wages and working conditions—joint labour committees, as they are called—which has been working very well in all phases of industry. It is rather too bad that in the year 1962 farm workers should be made to feel that the law for fixing their wages and conditions is this: the wages for the first-class type of worker are fixed by these committees and the wages for the second-class type of worker, the agricultural worker, are fixed by a different body and under a different system. In view of the fact that we expect to go into the Common Market, where the rate of wages and conditions for agricultural workers bear a close resemblance to those of the industrial worker, we feel the Government must find at this stage a better way of dealing with the agricultural worker than the Agricultural Wages Board, and we suggest that better way is a joint labour committee.

An agricultural joint labour committee operating under the auspices of an impartial and independent body like the Labour Court would be completely free and removed from any circumstances which might tend to influence the decisions of an agricultural wage fixing body. The same cannot be said of the present Agricultural Wages Board. The present chairman of the Board is a former Secretary of the Department of Agriculture; retired inspectors of the Department are appointed as "neutral members"; and the administrative staff of the Agricultural Wages Board are traditionally officers of the Department of Agriculture.

One group of people I have always admired are the inspectors of the Wages Board. They do with a great deal of tact a job not considered a very nice one. The fact that agricultural employers who break the law by paying less than the minimum of wages rarely appear in court is proof of the tact shown by these inspectors.

Bearing in mind the extraordinary powers vested in the chairman of the Board—virtually dictatorial powers— there are good grounds to doubt the wisdom of placing the control and administration of the agricultural wage-fixing authority in the hands of the Department of Agriculture, as the Department is a substantial employer of agricultural employees who are seeking improved conditions of employment. The Department has resisted the claims of its own employees by taking refuge behind the Agricultural Wages Board, notwithstanding the fact that the Board's powers do not extend to the regulation of conditions of employment. They quote the hours laid down by the Wages Board, 50 hours per week. They talk about the fact that they cannot get away from that, even though they know that according to the terms of the Act, the fixing of hours of work is apparently not the function of the Wages Board.

The annual reports of the Agricultural Wages Board, which are laid on the Table of the House, strongly suggest that some hidden hand in the Department of Agriculture not only influenced the Board on one occasion but went so far as to usurp the privileges of the members of the Board, namely the initiation of wage fixing proposals.

As the House is aware the members of the Board are appointed for a period of three years by the Minister for Agriculture and the new members of the Board take office on 1st January. An interesting story is told about the proceedings of the first meeting of a newly-appointed Board held during the first week of January some years ago. The outgoing members of the Board whose term of office expired on 31st December had made a wages order coming into operation on 3rd January—a few days later. When the new members sat down to transact the business of their first meeting there on the table lay a draft amending order, obviously prepared by a parliamentary draftsman—a closely-typed document of 15 pages, containing 11 tables of wages and four tables of perquisites, which has not yet been equalled in legal ingenuity. Now, the big question is: how did that draft amending order get to the Board meeting on 13th January ahead of the newly-appointed members of the Board? In fact, the Board were the only people entitled to initiate the amending order and they did not come into existence until 1st January.

Normally a proposed wages order or an amending order is drafted following the passing of a resolution of the Board to give effect to the resolution or a series of resolutions. The mystery of where this document came from has never been cleared up. To this day it is not known who ordered the preparation of this complicated draft amending order which was not prepared pursuant to a resolution of the Board and which was placed before newly appointed members of the Board at their first meeting. However, two assertions can be made: the document was drafted by a parliamentary draftsman and the present Minister for Agriculture was in no way responsible. The obvious conclusion is that somebody in the Department was responsible.

So much for the independence of the Agricultural Wages Board under the surveillance of the Department of Agriculture. So long as the agricultural wage fixing body is virtually part of the Department of Agriculture, despite its outward appearance of independence and separate identity, this unsavoury pressure could be exercised again—if people in high places in the Department do not agree with the Board's policy. This kind of pressure could be exercised through the chairman who holds office during the pleasure of the Minister for Agriculture. No such pressure or influence could be brought to bear on an agricultural joint labour committee operating under the auspices of the Labour Court, by the Department of Agriculture or anyone else. There is no point in the Minister denying that improper influences were brought to bear on the Agricultural Wages Board in the past and the best guarantee of fair play that can be given for the future is the transfer of the agricultural wage-fixing authority to the impartial atmosphere of the Labour Court.

It is desirable and important that the agricultural wage fixing authority should be an independent body and should be seen to be independent. The vast majority of farmers and farm workers believe that agricultural wages are fixed by the Government, and members of the Government have claimed credit for increases in wages granted by the Agricultural Wages Board. We are all aware that if a wage increase is granted in close proximity to an election and if it suits the Government in power, they occasionally claim credit for that increase. Fortunately, this undesirable state of affairs does not apply to the various occupations and thousands of workers covered by the joint labour committees which function under the auspices of the Labour Court, and it should not be tolerated in agriculture.

Hitherto we have criticised only the defects or shortcomings of the Agricultural Wages Acts, and the technical aspect of the wage fixing machinery set up under them. The Agricultural Wages Board also merit severe criticism because they have failed to carry out their obligations properly and have persisted in perpetuating an inadequate wage structure for farm workers which no one, not even the Board themselves, can understand. At present the minimum wage for adult farm workers aged 20 years and over which operates in 22 counties is £6 per week of 50 hours. This is the highest wage which, in the Board's opinion, the smallest and poorest farm in the Group C area can afford to pay.

Mr. Dillon

Is it not a minimum wage?

Mr. Tully

That is what I said.

Mr. Dillon

The lowest.

Mr. Tully

It is the highest wage they think the smallest and poorest farmer can afford to pay. It is the lowest wage which any farmer will be allowed to pay by law but it is also the highest wage which the Board think the poorest farmer should be asked to pay. That is where the difficulty comes in. That is correct. This starvation wage applies to no less than 80 per cent. of the agricultural workers. The position about it is that the Agricultural Wages Board fix a minimum rate of wages. In fixing that rate of wages, they state that they fix a rate of wages which, in their opinion, the smallest and poorest farmer in the country will be able to pay the worst man he employs. That is freely stated by Agricultural Wages Board officials but the trouble about it is that the small or poor farmer does not employ farm labour. As a matter of fact, most of the people who operate small farms do the work themselves and, in fact, look for jobs with bigger farmers, with Bord na Móna, with the local authorities and other bodies.

We know quite well that that is the situation and has been the situation for quite a long time. Therefore, we consider it very unfair that, when the Agricultural Wages Board are fixing a minimum rate of wages, they should take into account the income of this smaller farmer. Statistics will prove it is a fact that the people who employ farm workers in the State are the people with the large farms. Obviously, the Board have been obsessed by the conditions of the small farmers and have ignored the large farmers who employ full-time hired labour.

Recently, in a discussion, a representative of one of the farming organisations attempted to prove that farmers would not be able to pay a higher rate of wages to farm workers because of the fact that they themselves, from the small farms, were getting an income of only approximately £300 to £400. It is quite obvious to anybody who stops to think that somebody who is getting a gross income of from £300 to £400 a year is in no position to pay £300 per year to anybody else but he does not have to. If such people do not do the work themselves, they do not employ hired labour.

The argument we are making in the Labour Party—it is an argument with which anybody with a sense of fair play in this House will have to agree—is that if only the 100 acre farmer and upwards is giving employment for 52 weeks of the year, the basis of wage-fixing should be what that man is able to afford and not what the man who does not employ any labour is able to afford. That is a fair and genuine argument. The only way we can suggest we can get around to that is to remove the wage-fixing machinery completely from the control of the Agricultural Wages Board and give the farm workers the same right as every other manual worker who is working for hire. He should be given the right to have his wages fixed by a joint labour committee, representative of the organised farmers and the organised workers, and to have that the deciding body on wages and working conditions.

There are three groups, A, B and C. Most of the country was in group C. Up to now, group C included such counties as the Model County—Wexford—Carlow and Kilkenny. They were grouped with Mayo, Leitrim, Clare and West Cork. The Agricultural Wages Board apparently considered that the people in the Model County were not in any better position to pay wages than the people who farm in Mayo, Leitrim, Clare or West Cork.

I think that in itself shows where the thinking of the Agricultural Wages Board has been all wrong. Very recently, the Agricultural Wages Board met and solemnly decided they would move some of those counties, or portions of those counties, into group B. From the next wage adjustment order, if such a thing does occur, those counties will automatically be moved into the second group and instead of having the wage which they have at present, £6 per week, they will automatically have an extra 7/-, giving them £6-7-6.

Let me go further into the question. When the last wage adjustment took place, another example of muddled thinking was very evident. While the people in group A, which consists of Dublin county and borough and the urban district of Bray, got from the lofty heights of £6-5-0 per week an increase of 10/-, people in group B who constitute all Clare, a big portion of Cork, around the city, Kildare, portion of Kilkenny, Limerick county borough and County Limerick, the whole of Louth and Meath, Waterford county borough and County Waterford and the remainder of County Wicklow, on their wage of £5-19-0, got 8/- a week as male adult workers.

Then they came down to group C. Those are the people who are described as "the remainder of the country". They include Wexford, Carlow, North Kilkenny, with Mayo, Leitrim, Clare and West Cork. They were getting £5-14-0 a week—a 50-hour week applies in all three areas— and they got 6/- a week. Apparently, the people who fix wages on the Agricultural Wages Board were not aware that in Cork, Wexford and Mayo, the same price has to be paid for bread, butter, tea, sugar and everything else as in the rest of the country. The new rate has been fixed and possibly we can do nothing about it, now.

A week later, the Wages Board met again to deal with counties that have a female labour rate fixed. Why that is not the case for the whole country. I do not know. Those people who had agreed that a 6s. a week increase was the most that could be offered to the agricultural workers in the greater part of the country—apart from the 10s. to a select few—decided that the female workers of Dublin and Kildare were entitled to an increase of 8s. a day. I do not know how they arrived at that. Certainly I do not begrudge the female workers of Kildare or Dublin their 8s. increase; but I ask the House to consider why a body responsible for taking such a decision should decide also that the general body of farm workers were to get only 6s., bearing in mind that in this country, thank God, the man is still wage-earner and the person who takes responsibility for looking after the family, while his sister, who happens to be working across the border in Kildare, will get 8s. increase. I do not know how that worked out.

The reply may be made that these rates compare favourably with wages paid elsewhere. I should like to point out that in the Six Counties, for instance, in the Belfast area, male workers get eight guineas per week of 47 hours; female workers get six guines which is the same rate as is paid to adult males in the greater part of the Republic. In Antrim and Down, male workers get £8 5s.; female workers, £6 4s. In Derry, the figures are £8 3s. and £6 2s. 6d. respectively. In Armagh and Tyrone, just across the Border, the rates are £8 2s. and £6 16s. In Fermanagh, again only across the Border, the figures are £8 1s. and £6 1s. respectively. In Britain, for a working week of 46 hours in England and Wales the rates are £8 15s. and £6 11s. 6d. This is proof enough that the wages being paid to farm workers here are far below what is being paid either across the Border or across the water. We must conclude that the fault lies, not, perhaps, with the Government or anybody else, but with the wage-fixing machinery, the Agricultural Wages Board which, I suggest, has outlived its usefulness.

I want to make it very clear—and it cannot be repeated too often—that we agree that the small farmer here at present and for some time past has not been doing well but we also claim that there is evidence to show that the big farmers, those who employ farm-labour, are doing well and should pay the worker a fair wage.

Farm labour has been growing scarce in some areas and is it any wonder, considering the miserly wage offered, that farm labourers should leave their jobs to get alternative work either here or across the water? Is it any wonder that we find, over the past 12 months according to the latest statistics, that the number of hired hands who left the country was over 5,000? It is rather significant that over 3,000 members of farmers' families returned to the land—proof that there must be some money there.

In addition to the faults I have described, and which I claim the Agricultural Wages Board are responsible for, there is also the question on which the Minister and I crossed swords a few days ago, the question of boys between 14 and 16 years of age and the Agricultural Wages Board having rates of wages for them, from 16 and under 17; 17 and under 18; 18 and under 19; 19 and under 20. According to the Agricultural Wages Board, you do not become an adult until you are 20 years of age.

In reply to my question, the Minister said that in 1936 there were 2,652 boys, under 16, employed in agriculture; in 1946, the figure was 3,962 and in 1951, 3,694.

If we had up-to-date figures, I think we would find that the number has grown, possibly considerably, because while there was very little machinery on Irish farms in 1936, it was beginning to appear in 1946 and in 1951, it was well established. Any of us who go to the country find boys of 14, 15 or 16 driving tractors in the fields. With powered machinery, if the boy is able to manipulate it—and many of them are—it is true that there is a type of work which possibly a boy of that age can do as well as an adult. The unfortunate thing is that, as the law stands, no minimum wage is laid down for that boy and he can be employed for 10/- a week. In fact, there are cases where people have been employed for very little more than that. This is hard work, skilled work and it is too bad that the law of this country allows that practice to continue. I suggest that the Wages Board could have stopped it to some extent by introducing a system of fixing wages for those aged 14 to 16, but they did not do that and the job should now be handed over to those who will.

There is another problem in regard to which the Wages Board have very little to be proud and in which their record is as bad as, or worse than, that of any other similar body in this country, that is, the very vexed question of the amount which it costs to feed a man on a farm. Those of us who have been reared in the country are aware that unless it is a very big farm, the man who is working on it gets the same type of food as the family. He may not eat at the same table if the farm is big enough and if there is some snobbery there, but by and large, he gets the same sort of food as the family. The extraordinary thing about it is that if a man is receiving food and is getting £6 a week and is working for six days of the week, his board per day will cost him 6/6d., or 39/- a week. If he gets lodgings as well, then it will be over the 50/- mark. If that man has a wife and if, as many workers have, he has a large young family, it is suggested by the Wages Board—it must be, because they make the regulations—that out of the £6 he must pay for his insurance stamps and deductions for meals of, say, 39/-. With the £4 which he has left, he is supposed to be able to pay for food for his wife and family, for rent, for clothing, lighting and all the other things he and his family may require.

If there is any evidence needed to prove that the Agricultural Wages Board have no conception whatever of the proper treatment of the people who are so important in the agricultural industry, that is the evidence which will go further than anything else to prove it. It is a fact that these perquisites as they call them, were altered a few years ago but they were not altered, or altered in a downward direction, until the matter was raised in this House. It required a debate in this House to bring to the notice of the Agricultural Wages Board that they had a responsibility in regard to fixing proper rates for perquisities. Even when they did do that, they still did not go the whole way by putting the thing in order.

Up to 1959, the Board appear to have ignored the distribution of agricultural employment as revealed in the national farm survey and Government statistics. If we are at all interested in what everybody likes to call the primary industry, agriculture, when it suits them, those engaged in it for their livelihood must get more consideration. I believe there is not a hope that consideration can be given to them by the Agricultural Wages Board. I believe they are trying to mess around with that Board and improve it, even as it is, as we attempted to do with an earlier Bill which we withdrew. That cannot be done. I pointed out previously that one of the qualifications which seem to be necessary to become a neutral member of the Board is to be a Fianna Fáil member of a county council. There of the present neutral people are such members. I am not saying that those people are not very decent in their own way but I am saying that they are not people who might understand the interests of farm workers. The evidence is before us that they do not understand, or if they do, they are deliberately preventing the Wages Board from giving proper decisions in these matters.

I mentioned earlier how decisions of the Wages Board are arrived at. There are four workers' representatives and four farmers' representatives and there are three neutral members. If there is a deadlock, those three can sway it one way or another, or two of the three, and it is rather remarkable from the records of the Board that in 99 cases out of 100, those people, and the people who went before them, have always voted with the farmers' representatives. It may be said that the workers' representatives put up unreasonable proposals but it is true that the decisions have been as I have described.

There is one thing which more than anything else must be taken into consideration, that is, the fact that in the event of a division of opinion amongst the members of the Board, if four farmers and four workers and two neutrals, or any proportion you like, vote one way and one member of the Board disagrees, the chairman has the right to veto not alone the proposal of the majority but even the proposal of the minority and can bring in a separate order and that order must be carried out.

I should like the Minister to tell me if he knows of any wage-fixing machinery in this country or in any other civilised country which makes provision for that sort of thing. It is too bad that that should be still operating. It does of course put the onus on the chairman as being the person who fixes the wages of farm workers. I also mentioned before that if a meeting of the Board is convened and nobody except the chairman turns up, because of bad weather or some other reason, the chairman constitutes a quorum and he can make an order which is binding on the farm workers. The matter became so bad that the trade union which I represent, and which represents farm workers, sent a deputation some months ago to the Department of the Taoiseach to complain about what they considered a gross abuse of the position of the neutral members. As long as you have the situation where that can recur, you will have an impossible situation where farm workers are concerned.

I mentioned that Wexford, Carlow and Kilkenny were in group C but that they will be changed, soon, we hope, into group B. Wexford is a good dairying centre where cereals and fruit are grown widely and it is one of the best market centres. There is no comparison between the position obtaining in Wexford and in Mayo and is it not rather ridiculous when you hear people who are responsible for fixing wages referring to the condition of the small Wexford farmers as a reason why agricultural wages in group C should not be raised over £6?

It is stated that the proof is that the people on the western farms are getting it very hard to live. Of course they are, but they do not employ paid labour and what they are doing or not doing has no influence, or should have no influence whatever on the question of what the Wages Board do about minimum rates for farm workers. Minimum rates are laid down but it is not true to say that they are regarded as minimum rates by either farmers or workers. They are regarded as the standard rates. They are the rates the farmers try to get away with, and do get away with paying. Any country that allows an industry to pay its key men £6 a week needs a reshuffle and the only way that can be done is by appointing a joint industrial council.

I mentioned the question of perquisites and that the agricultural worker's board is fixed at 6/6d. a day. That is for his meals. If we accept that, we must also accept it that it costs the farm worker's wife 6/6d. a day to feed her husband. If we accept that to be the rate to be deducted from the farm worker's pay for his meals, what would it cost the average farm worker, say, a married man with five children, to feed and clothe his family? That is a good question which the Wages Board have not so far attempted to answer. We need not ask them to answer it because they will not do it but somebody will have to find the answer to it. It is quite clear that £6 a week is sufficient to buy only the minimum amount of food.

When the rate of wages was being fixed this year, an attempt was made to change the age of the adult worker, but without success. We still have a boy of 19 years of age working over most of the country for £5 5s. for a week of 50 hours. A boy who is under 19 but over 18 gets £4 10s. and a boy under 18 but over 17 gets £4. A boy under 17 years of age but over 16 is paid £3 5s. a week. I continually think about the fact that even a chap who is getting only £3 5s. a week can have a deduction made from his wages of 4/6d. a day for his meals. If he pays that for his meals, he does not have very much to take home, whether he has a dependent mother or is trying to assist in the rearing of a large family.

The Minister was asked to explain how the Board arrived at the value of meals given to farm workers but apparently the Board refused to get the costs from the Central Statistics Office. The Board usually allocates about 40 per cent. of the wage increases of the employees to cover meals, even though food prices may not have increased at all.

We honestly believe that the argument in favour of making a first-class revision of the method of fixing farm workers' wages is overwhelming. We believe the Government should and, I hope, will adopt the Bill and allow the wages of agricultural workers to be fixed in the very same way as the wages of all other manual workers in the State are fixed. This will probably have the result of causing a very substantial increase in farm workers' wages the first time it is put into operation. The Minister should not fear that because I am sure he will agree with me that the people who employ these workers are well able to pay these wages.

I think he will also agree with me that throughout the country the majority of the small farmers are themselves looking for employment to subsidise what they can make from their own farms and, in fact, practically every farmer with a valuation under £50 and £60 and perhaps the people with valuations up to £100 have their sons employed at varying types of work throughout the country, including work on the farms of more prosperous neighbouring farmers.

I appreciate that the Minister has a very responsible task and that he realises, no matter what other people may say, particularly city Deputies who may fear that an increase in agricultural wages may cause an increase in the price of foodstuffs, that agriculture is the most important industry in this country. The interests of the agriculturists must be looked after but I suggest to the Minister and to the House that the interests of the agriculturist are synonymous with the interests of the farm worker because he is the person who keeps the wheels turning in agriculture. If he is not properly treated, the industry as a whole cannot be expected to prosper.

Mr. Treacy

Deputy Tully has spoken at length and has outlined in very great detail the proposals contained in this Bill. He has done so in such a very factual way that it is difficult to elaborate upon what he has said. This Bill is a reasonable one. It is very necessary and long overdue, though I expect the Minister will not agree with that opinion. The main purpose of our Bill is to bring agricultural wages within the scope of the Industrial Relations Act of 1946, to abolish the present system and to transfer the wage-fixing function of the Agricultural Wages Board to a Labour Court joint committee representative of agricultural employees and employers and appointed by the Labour Court.

We say that is reasonable. We believe that the present Agricultural Wages Board is undemocratic in every sense of that word. It is autocratic and dictatorial. It is operated from the top, through the Minister's powers, rather than from the bottom upwards as it should be. It has so-called neutral representatives on it who invariably vote with the employers. They cannot be said to be neutral, in any sense of the word. We believe there can be no such thing as neutrals in a matter such as the fixation of wages.

The set-up in the Agricultural Wages Board is absurd inasmuch as the powers and functions of that Board under Section 17 of the Agricultural Wages Act, 1936, are confined to fixing minimum rates of wages, overtime rates and the value of perquisites. That is the sole and only function of the Board. The Minister has stated on many occasions here that the Board have no power to prescribe conditions of employment. We have then the ridiculous situation in which the Board, purporting to represent the workers in the most important industry in the country, are restricted to the mere fixation of wages and have no say at all in the important matter of conditions of work.

We are asking that that autonomous, dictatorial Board, which have lost the confidence of not merely the workers dependent upon it for fairplay but also the confidence of all fair-minded people in the country, be forthwith suspended. It is a spent force, suspect in every sense of the word. It is a negation of democracy. We know of no good reason why agricultural workers should be regarded as second-rate citizens, confined to this particular Board and denied the right of a separate body under the Labour Court. In asking that this joint labour committee be set up, we are merely asking for something which has been done in most other industries. We envisage a joint industrial council —I think the Minister's wish would be for such a body—to deal with this very important industry, a council representing the workers and farmers and all facets of agriculture. In that way, we should give to agriculture the impetus it needs to stimulate production.

Production in this most important industry has been stagnant for a long number of years. We believe one of the primary reasons for that is that labour engaged in agriculture has not been given its rightful place. It has never been given its fair share of the wealth it creates for the nation. It is only right and proper that the man who helps to produce the wealth should, in justice and equity, receive a share in it. We seek in this Bill a new chapter for the agricultural worker, conferring on him a new dignity and status, and putting him on the same plane as general workers. The stigma attaching to this particular group must be eliminated. If it is not, there will never be any real interest taken in agriculture and there will never be any upsurge in production. Unless fair wages are paid to this important category of workers, the right type of man will not offer for agricultural employment. Deputy Tully has shown quite clearly that wages here are lower than those that obtain in most progressive countries in Europe, in Great Britain, and even in Northern Ireland. That situation cannot be allowed to continue.

I have commented upon the powers of the Agricultural Wages Board. It is strange that this Board should have no say in conditions. I appreciate there is a body appointed to examine into conditions and to improve conditions and ensure that justice is done. That Board should have been given authority to examine into disputes. It should be a board of conciliation and arbitration in the real sense. It is not that. It does not perform any worthwhile function. If the conditions of employment made under the Board are not adhered to, the worker has a right to appeal and have his case investigated. The Minister and the House will appreciate that the wise agricultural worker is slow to appeal for investigation into unfair treatment, bad conditions, or too low wages, because, if he does so, he runs the risk of victimisation, not merely by his employer but by the other farmers in the area within a radius of 40 to 50 miles. Not only is he likely to be dismissed but he is even more likely to be blackballed, completely ostracised in the locality, and his chances of securing work in the area are very slim indeed. He might as well pack his bag, as many have had to do, and go to England.

The officials do a good job. Whenever they are called upon to investigate, they do so. They have won justice for many workers and I compliment them on that, but I also know that the repercussions of such investigations are pretty serious. The worker must get out of that area because his chances of employment are negligible. It would be far better to have the type of body we suggest, a committee of inquiry which would go down the country, drop in here and there on farmers, and satisfy themselves that conditions as to wages and work are being observed, rather than that a request should have to be made for an investigation. The worker who is retained at the moment after such an investigation is a very fortunate man. He is one of the few. Consequently there must be very many cases where the conditions, hours of work and wages paid are not right because the men are in fear and trembling of mentioning it to any public representative, to their union or to anyone else.

The average wages of an agricultural worker are £6 for a 50 hour week, while the average wages of an industrial worker are £9 10s. for an average 44 hour week. The comparison there is self-evident. Apart from that extremely low wage rate, other concealed demands are made upon the agricultural worker, about which the House should know.

If a worker resides in the farmer's house, he pays 7/3 per day for board and lodging, and one can see that he can pay upwards of £2 10s. out of £6, leaving him £3 10s. to maintain himself, not to mention his wife and family. That is not enough. There is also a charge for a cottage. If a worker lives in a cottage owned by the farmer, he pays 3/- per week. There is a charge for a plot of ground, with, perhaps, potatoes, of upwards of 3/1 per week. There is even a charge— and it was quite recently that I learned this kind of charges could be made in a Christian country; I understood that these perquisites were given, free, gratis and for nothing, to the agricultural worker—for fresh milk. That charge is laid down in this document at 1/10 per gallon. If the worker gets the grass of a cow, he has to pay 2/9 per week for it.

Obviously somebody in the Department has gone through the conditions appertaining to the agricultural worker with a magnifying glass and a fine tooth comb to extract the last half-penny from him. I visited many farmers in recent times and I was pleased to see the growth of modernisation, the rearing of hundreds of pigs, the rearing of cattle, all domiciled in most modern buildings with central heating, light and air conditioning. They are fed from granaries on a conveyor system and the refuse is removed by mechanical means. Nothing was spared to provide for the utmost comfort and health of the animals.

Side by side with that, I have seen a farm worker, his wife and large family, living in a dilapidated house, sometimes in the middle of a farmyard among the animals and the manure, with no sanitation, no light, no heat and no ventilation. How one is expected to rear a family in such an atmosphere is a nightmare to the worker's wife. There is the anomaly of this kind of preference being given to the beasts of the field while the utmost disregard is shown for human beings. In those circumstances why should the Minister not ordain that any authority or body he sets up will have power to investigate such conditions?

It is to be hoped that the Minister, and the House also, will see the wisdom of adopting this Bill because, as was said earlier, it is a reasonable and practical measure and long overdue. It will give the agricultural worker a new sense of status, well-being and security, and of necessity, it is bound to have a very healthy effect on the agricultural economy as a whole. We cannot ignore the flight from the land. We cannot ignore the fact that agricultural work is something that one would wish to escape from, if at all possible. It is only as a last resort that men go into agricultural work, not to mention women. To have to say that for our major industry is no indication of prosperity in the future. That is a set of circumstances that must be changed.

We want to arrive at the happy day when the worker who goes into agricultural employment will feel that he is getting a fair wage and decent conditions of work, that he will have some sense of security and that he will share as he should, in equity and justice, in the wealth which he helps to create. That is our claim for him. With those sentiments, I recommend this measure to the House. I sincerely hope the Minister, progressive-minded as he is, no doubt, will have regard to the very excellent speech made by Deputy Tully and the cogent facts which he gave. Deputy Tully is fully conversant with this problem. He represents the union which caters for the agricultural workers. It is to be deplored that more of them do not see the wisdom of joining that union in which they could band together and assert themselves, lift themselves from their knees, give themselves status, manhood and dignity, and claim their rightful share in the wealth of the community to which they are entitled in equity and justice.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Smith)

I recommend the rejection of the Bill on two main grounds. In the first place, I believe that the existing machinery for fixing agricultural wages has proved adequate. It has stood the test of time. It has benefited the agricultural worker very considerably and, because it is fair to both sides, it is accepted by employer and worker alike. The existing Acts have effectively put a floor to agricultural wages and no legislation of the kind proposed in the Bill is going to put the genuine agricultural worker in a better position. Secondly, the Bill is objectionable on a number of points of principle, as I shall show, I hope, later.

The Bill, in brief, aims at the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board and the transfer of its functions to the Labour Court. In effect, it seeks to transfer to the Minister for Industry and Commerce functions in relation to agricultural employment which are properly functions of the Minister for Agriculture. A disposal of functions as between these two Ministers in the way proposed would, I hold, be completely unsound.

Apart from that, the Labour Court and the Industrial Relations Acts were designed primarily to deal with industrial disputes. They have worked very well in industry but it is extremely doubtful if they would be so successful in agriculture. Workers and employers in industry are, in general, very fully organised. It would be difficult, however, to say which of the many rural organisations in the country could be accepted as representative of agricultural employers in questions dealing with labour and wages. My understanding is that most rural organisations have usually given a wide berth to such matters. Again, what organisation can be said to be fully representative of agricultural workers? So far as I know, the only trade union catering for agricultural workers is the Federation of Rural workers, whose permanent membership, according to my information, is only some hundreds, whereas the number of full-time agricultural workers in this country, excluding relatives of farmers, is about 50,000.

Mr. Tully

Somebody lost a few noughts on the way!

Mr. Smith

In industry, within any particular trade, there is a great deal of specialisation and of uniformity in regard to materials, methods and standards of work and products. The same cannot be said of agriculture which can vary from county to county, from district to district and even from farm to farm. There are also hazards such as weather, crop and livestock diseases of which industry is largely independent.

Industrialists can as a rule pass on wage increases to consumers in the form of increased prices. They can also usually accelerate or retard production to take advantage of price variations. These conditions do not apply to agriculture except perhaps to a very limited extent.

Generally speaking, the relations which exist between employer and worker on a farm are not of the same nature as those which exist between employer and worker in other spheres. Farmers normally work alongside their men and the relationship is, therefore, a very personal one. All these fundamental differences are reflected in the separate legislation dealing with each type of employment, not alone here but in other countries as well.

In view of the great variety of conditions in agriculture as compared with industry I think it would be true to say that a recommendation of the Labour Court would not have the same effect on those farmers and workers who were not a party to the hearing as it would have in industry and would therefore tend to be ignored.

As the House is aware, wage agreements between employers and workers, when registered by the Labour Court, become legally binding on all workers, and employers of the same classes whether they are parties thereto or not. In any particular area certain farmers might well be able and willing to enter into a registrable agreement but many others—and it could be up to 50 per cent. of the whole— might find such an agreement an unbearable imposition.

Proposals made by joint labour committees, when adopted by the Labour Court, have statutory effect. These committees consist of employers' members, workers' members and independent members with an independent chairman. The composition of the Agricultural Wages Board is, of course, similar and there is no reason to suppose that just because the rates of agricultural wages were being determined under the aegis of the Labour Court such rates would be different from those prescribed by a separate board, as at present. It might be argued that it would be desirable to have all wages determined by the same authority, which would have detailed information as to the wage rates payable in all sectors. Such an argument would not be valid, in my opinion, since ultimately the wages of agricultural workers are determined by the capacity of farmers to pay. In any event, information is always available to the Agricultural Wages Board, if they need it, regarding the wages paid in comparable fields of employment. In addition the Board has available to it, through the area committees, the views of farmers and workers over the entire country.

The Bill aims in Section 4 to transfer from the Agricultural Wages Board to the Labour Court responsibility for the administration of the legislation dealing with agricultural workers' holidays. The Labour Court does not administer the legislation dealing with holidays for industrial workers. This is a matter for the Minister for Industry and Commerce. To make the Labour Court responsible for the administration of agricultural workers' holiday legislation would, therefore, be inconsistent with the position relating to the administration of holiday legislation for other types of workers.

The expressions "agriculture", "agricultural employer" and "agricultural worker" are at present defined in precisely the same manner in both the Agricultural Wages Acts and the Agricultural Workers' Holidays Acts. It is proposed in the Bill that the Agricultural Wages Acts be repealed and that the Labour Court would, in future, be responsible under the Industrial Relations Acts for the fixing of agricultural workers' wages. It is not proposed to repeal the holidays legislation. The definitions of the expressions I have referred to would, therefore, have no legal validity in regard to the fixing of agricultural wages but would have legal validity with respect to agricultural workers' holidays.

The Bill also proposes in Section 5 that the Labour Court shall establish a joint labour committee to operate in respect of agricultural workers. This provision would appear to tie the hands of the Labour Court as regards the establishment of the proposed committee. The 1946 Act, on the other hand, provides that the Labour Court may by Order establish such a committee and lays down a fairly elaborate procedure to be followed before such an Order can be made. Section 5 of the Bill, accordingly, seeks to deprive the Labour Court of the independence and discretion it now has in the matter of establishing joint labour committees.

The composition and operation of the Agricultural Wages Board have been criticised and I feel that a useful purpose might be served if I were to put on record how the Board is constituted and how it has discharged its functions over the years. The Board consists of a chairman and eleven ordinary members, that is, three neutral members, four employers' members and four workers' members. A point has been made of the fact that the present chairman is a retired Secretary of the Department of Agriculture but there is nothing unusual in this, seeing that the Labour Court has frequently been presided over by an official of the State and is, in fact, at present under the chairmanship of a State official.

The present neutral members of the Board are a university lecturer, a national teacher and an industrialist. They are all people whose integrity is above reproach and none of them has any direct interest in the issues which come before the Board. The four workers' members who were appointed to the Board were suggested to me by the Federation of Rural Workers, which, as I have already stated is, I believe, the only trade union catering for agricultural workers. The members representing employers include a person suggested by the Agricultural Association of Ireland.

As regards the question of the discharge of its functions by the Board, I think I should say that since the Agricultural Wages Act came into operation the agricultural wage rates have been increased on 20 occasions. In the past 20 years, they have been increased 18 times and in the past five years, they have been increased five times.

All in all, the Bill contains nothing of merit and much that is objectionable. The sponsors must realise that measures on the lines of those proposed are not going to force farmers to pay wages which are beyond their capacity to pay. In my opinion, it is quite wrong to think that any permanent betterment of the lot of agricultural workers can be achieved merely by transferring from one body to another the functions regulating minimum wage rates, holiday pay and so forth. For over a quarter of a century, the Agricultural Wages Board has performed its functions satisfactorily and I see no adequate reason for its abolition. Accordingly, I cannot agree that the Bill should be granted a Second Reading.

Mr. Dillon

I am opposed to this Bill. I was Minister for Agriculture for six years and if I thought the present machinery could have been improved, I would have introduced the necessary amendment. I am not contending for a moment that the Agricultural Wages Board machinery is perfect, but having examined this question most diligently during my period of office, I could not find better machinery than the machinery at present operating. One of the principal purposes I had in mind when I achieved the ambition I set myself when I entered public life, that of becoming Minister for Agriculture, was to see that agricultural workers in this country would attain to a standard of living approximating that enjoyed by industrial workers. One of the reasons why I want this country to enter the Common Market is that I believe conditions will be created in which it will be possible to get for agricultural workers in this country wages and conditions approximately equal to those enjoyed by skilled industrial workers.

It is to be borne in mind that the function of the Agricultural Wages Board is not to fix rates of wages. Their function is to fix minimum rates of wages. The purpose of the Agricultural Wages Board is to lay down a rate of wages below which it is a criminal offence for any employer to pay his worker. It would be quite a different cup of tea if we were dealing with a body who were charged by the Oireachtas with the responsibility of fixing wage rates in every contract of employment. Does Deputy Tully suggest it is remarkable that the Fianna Fáil Party and I find ourselves in agreement about this?

Mr. Tully

Not a bit. I have been watching it for years.

Mr. Dillon

Perhaps the Deputy forgets he was associated with me in a Government for six years?

Mr. Tully

It is one of the things I regret all my life.

Mr. Dillon

Then let the Deputy go on regretting. The inter-Party Government did not change this law. We did not change this law. It was not because we did not wish the conditions of agricultural workers improved. The whole purpose of that Government's agricultural policy was to ensure that the position of agricultural workers would steadily improve. I do not believe in codology or fraud, whether it emanates from Fianna Fáil or the Labour Party. The whole basis of Deputy Tully's speech here today was that this board were fixing rates of wages to be paid to agricultural workers in this country. That is not the fact. It never was.

It is right that these things should be fully ventilated, lest some people are misled. We all know perfectly well that in the United States of America, there is a federal minimum wage law. Up to recently, the federal minimum wage was a dollar an hour. During the present administration, it was raised to 1.25 dollars. How many people in the United States were working for 48 dollars a week? Not one per cent. of the population. The purpose of the federal minimum wage was to ensure that it would be a criminal offence to pay anybody with whom you had a contract of employment less than that figure. Nobody suggested that that would be the common figure, the universal figure or the ruling rate of wages for the people.

I feel and the Party whom I lead would feel a grave responsibility if we agreed with the proposals contained in the Bill submitted by the Labour Party and had not given effect to them when we had the chance. The only reason we did not change this legislation when we were in office was that I, as Minister for Agriculture, advised the Government—and the Government agreed—that we could not find a more effective way of protecting the agricultural workers from exploitation by anybody who wished to exploit them.

I appointed the present chairman of the Board and a better man could not have been got and could not now be got than the man at present presiding over the Board. He is a past Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, a man with vast administrative experience, a man who spent his whole life in contact with agriculture in this country, utterly divorced from vested interests either on the employers' side or on the employees' side. In fact, his whole life has been spent trying to advise Ministers of the objective view to be taken by the various vested interests which continually press upon the Minister for Agriculture. So far as I can see, nobody would have discharged the duties imposed upon him by the legislation passed by this House more scrupulously, effectively or more fearlessly than the present chairman of the Agricultural Wages Board. Certain it is that only a fool of a Minister for Agriculture would seek to coerce the present chairman of the Board to do anything other than what he believed it his duty to do.

I think it is important that the House should fully grasp the significant fact in regard to the matter laid before us now. The purpose of this Board is not to fix rates of wages; the purpose of the board is to fix minimum rates of wages. I do not believe that ten per cent. of the agricultural workers in this country are working at these rates of wages at the present time, for the simple reason that you could not keep a man and pay him this rate of wages He would not stay with you. There are plenty of people prepared to pay more. Accordingly, the agricultural workers will go, sensibly, and get the highest rate of wages they can for the work they do.

The only effective way to increase the rates of agricultural wages in this country to a level comparable with those in Northern Ireland and Great Britain is to get for the agricultural industry prices comparable with the prices obtainable in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. These prices are not available to us at the present time. I hope that, when we get into the Common Market on the basis of equality with the other countries, the required machinery will be provided to ensure that our producers will get for their produce as equitable a price as the people get in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. The Board will then be justified in stipulating minimum rates substantially higher than those laid down and the farmers, who will enjoy the better prices available in the Common Market, will conform to the regulations laid down by the Agricultural Wages Board. One of the deadly sins is to deny the labourer his hire and when farmers are able to afford to pay more without regard to the rulings of the Board, they will feel it incumbent on their consciences to pay them what they are entitled to get, that is, the maximum wage the employer can afford.

I am not saying that every employer will do that. I concede that it is a legitimate and even desirable function for the trade unions to organise agricultural workers to ensure that substantial justice will be done by the agricultural workers and those who employ them.

Debate adjourned.