Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Oct 1965

Vol. 218 No. 1

Private Members' Business. - Agricultural Workers (Holidays and Conditions of Employment) Bill, 1965: Second Stage.

Mr. James Tully

I move:

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The primary purpose of the Bill is described in its Long Title. The main reason we are moving it is to give statutory effect to a decision of the Agricultural Wages Board adopted on 4th April, 1963, advocating legislation to give agricultural workers a statutory right to public holidays or alternatively Church holidays with pay.

The Agricultural Wages Board, set up many years ago, have carried out a reasonably useful function but there are a number of anomalies attached to the operations of the Board and for that reason, when the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1961, was being introduced, the Minister responsible for it, for some extraordinary reason, decided that instead of trying to straighten out some of the anomalies, he would take the easy way out and leave agricultural workers out of the Bill and introduce later a Bill covering holidays for agricultural workers. The result is that every worker in the country is entitled to a minimum of 18 days holidays by law but agricultural workers are entitled to only 12.

Recently the Agricultural Wages Board took a decision which resulted in two extra days being given to agricultural workers—St. Patrick's Day and Christmas Day. In a recent board order there was an extraordinary paragraph which stated that if it was the practice of agricultural employers in any area to give agricultural workers Church holidays with pay, that arrangement should continue. That order leads one to assume it had legal effect in a particular area. If workers were not in a particular area, they could not get anything more than their annual holidays. For that reason, the terms of employment of agricultural workers compared very badly with those of other types of workers. It has been the practice throughout the years that agricultural workers do not work on Church holidays and on feast days. Therefore, they had the days off. According to law, they had those days off without pay. In other words, they and their families must fast on feast days and I do not see how that can be regarded as a Christian attitude in a Christian country.

The Agricultural Workers (Holidays) Act, 1961, relates to annual holidays only — two weeks annual leave—but not to Church or public holidays. The Holidays (Employees) Act, 1961, applies to farm workers employed by the State but not to agricultural workers generally. It is rather strange this should be so but apparently under the Agricultural Wages Act, State employees, even if they are employed in agriculture, are not regarded as agricultural workers. Legal opinion has been expressed to the Agricultural Wages Board that they have not powers to prescribe public and Church holidays in conditions of employment. Despite that advice, the board in fact prescribed two Church holidays with pay — 17th March and 25th December.

As we all know, agricultural workers in private employment are the only workers in the State who have not a statutory right to public holidays or Church holidays with pay. It appears as if we consider agricultural workers as second-class citizens. All workers except those engaged in agriculture are entitled to certain holidays and farm workers are entitled to considerably less, one-third less than other workers.

If this Bill is passed, farm workers will qualify for holidays based on an Act passed 29 years ago and catering for other workers. I do not think it is too much to ask that this be done. A Bill passed in 1946 in relation to paid holidays was debated on 29th March, 1946, and the Minister for Agriculture of that day expressed the view that the Agricultural Wages Board had power to make provision for holidays with pay. At column 901 of the Official Report for 29th March, 1946, the Minister for Agriculture is reported as having said:

If the Agricultural Wages Board make any decision with regard to holidays, it will certainly have my co-operation, if that is necessary. There are certain decisions that I do not come into but if it is necessary to give legal effect to any decision come to, I will certainly co-operate as far as I can to bring the matter before the Dáil.

Later in the debate, the Minister emphasises the fact that he was sympathetic to legislation because he said:

All I can say is that whatever the board may decide will have my cooperation and if any legal action is necessary, I am prepared to bring the matter before the Dáil.

That was column 904 of the same date. It may seem extraordinary that I should be here asking the Minister for Agriculture to get the agreement of the House 20 years later to what was apparently all right with the Minister for Agriculture in 1946.

I do not know whether the House is aware of the set-up of the Agricultural Wages Board. The central board consists of 12 members.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is this the Bill for First Stage?

Mr. James Tully

It is the Second Stage. The First Stage was agreed to and it was agreed that the Second Stage be taken today.

Mr. Sweetman

How could it be the First Stage when we have the principles of the Bill already?

Mr. James Tully

With respect to you, Sir, there are busybodies apparently still about. This central board consists of 12 members, four employers, four workers, three neutrals and a chairman. They have unanimously requested providing public holidays for farm workers because the board was advised it had not the legal power to prescribe what was behind the statutory order. It is interesting to note that the board has been sympathetic to workers who have to work on public or Church holidays. As a matter of fact, the board considers it unfair that a farm worker who is obliged to work on St. Patrick's Day or Christmas Day should be paid the ordinary flat rate, the very same as the man who did not work on those days at all. They made a special order making those two days days of special holiday.

The legal adviser to the board claimed they had no power to do this under the Agricultural Wages Act, 1936. I would point out if they have offended in this and another matter— they have reduced the working week to an average of 46 hours by working the two periods winter and summer— and if they have in fact been doing things which are not quite legal, they have been doing them with the consent of the Dáil because all orders made by the board are laid before this House. Therefore, we would be a party to any illegal act which has been carried out. I hope that will excuse the board if they have in fact been doing something which was not quite correct.

Sections 2 and 3 of the Bill before the House provide for alternative ways of granting holidays for Church holidays which farm workers have to work. The Labour Party will accept an amendment of the 1961 Act and 1950 Act, if the Minister so desires, to deal with this matter.

Section 4 proposes an extension of sections 43 and 51 of the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936 so as to give farm workers a legal right. The Agricultural Wages Board has no power to prescribe a 48 hour week, according to the lawyers. This section would give farm workers the right to overtime after 48 hours. As a matter of fact, the overtime rate given to farm workers—this has nothing to do with the Bill—is more generous in the Conditions of Employment Act.

Extended powers for the board are proposed in section 5. Subsection (1) proposes to give the board the same powers to prescribe conditions of employment to farm workers as are prescribed in the joint labour committee which functions in respect of industrial workers. The whole idea is to try to get down to a situation where farm workers will be treated as ordinary workers and not as others. The system in this country is that there are two types of people, we and they. Apparently the farm workers have been "they" so far. We believe it is about time the situation was changed and that they were treated as ordinary people. They deserve a lot better from the community than they have so far been getting.

It is no secret that farm workers work longer hours than any other type of worker, nor is it any secret that the minimum wage laid down by the Agricultural Wages Board for farm workers is the lowest paid to workers in any job. As a matter of fact, the rate was based on the 50 hours which they work and it is very much lower than that paid by even the most menial type of workers in the State. This Bill is an effort to do even partial justice to those people. We do not expect that the Government will oppose the Bill and we hope that it will be dealt with in a responsible way.

One of the extraordinary things about the Agricultural Wages Board, as it stands, is that while it has power to give overtime rates, the lawyers and legal advisers of the board say they have no power to define what is overtime employment. This may sound a little extraordinary but this is, I suppose, the shortcoming of an Act which has been in operation for a long time, rather hurriedly thrown together. Because of the time it was drawn up, and because of the type of worker referred to, it has not been amended in any way since then.

New Members of the House and those who have been here for a long time will remember what happened when farm workers got a legal right to a half-holiday without loss of pay. Subsection (5) proposes to fill the gap by re-enacting what was done on 10th May, 1918 for the purpose of straightening out the anomaly which arose at that time. Subsection (2) proposes to remove a vexatious anomaly which at times has frozen wage-fixing machinery for two months. This is what happened to regulations made by the Minister for Agriculture on 21st July, 1957, Statutory Rules and Orders, No. 200, which provide that the chairman may not vote at an arranged meeting of the committee.

As I said, there is a central committee consisting of four employers, four workers, three neutrals and a chairman. Where there is, at that committee, a total of 12, the chairman has a vote, but there are five area, or regional, committees which consist of four employers, four workers and the same chairman but the chairman has no right to vote. This has resulted in the extraordinary situation, that if the central board decide to ask for a revision of wages and submit the matter to the regional board for an expression of opinion, if the regional board vote 4:4 or any other even number for or against the proposal, the chairman may not vote. When the report is made to the central committee, it means it is accepted that no recommendation has been made and, no recommendation having been made, no decision of the central board can be carried out.

This is one of the really extraordinary things which should have been remedied a long time ago. The board may not make an offer, therefore, for two months following that abortive meeting. I can see no reason why, if a proposal is made, either the chairman should be entitled to vote or better still, the central board would note the fact that no recommendation was made and make their final decision without any further reference to the regional board. It is right to note that the central board do not have to take account of the decision. Supposing the five boards decided against an increase in wages, the central board can in fact order an increase in wages, but if, say, four boards recommend in favour of an increase and one of the five does not reach a conclusion, then the situation is that no decision on an increase can be taken for two months. It seems so desperately stupid, particularly when we have brought our wage-fixing machinery in all other sections up to such a high standard.

I do not know whether Deputy Murphy's question about status pay can be applied to agricultural workers. I think nobody can deny the fact that the status of agricultural workers has been raised very considerably over the past couple of years. Practically every farm worker must be an expert on machinery; he must know not alone how to operate the machinery but also a lot about running repairs. This should raise his status considerably and possibly agricultural workers' pay might be a recommendation which the Minister might consider very favourably.

Subsection (3) of section 5 makes it clear that the period of two months shall commence on the day on which the board adopts a resolution to revoke or amend an order; in other words, the date on which the board decides to set the machinery in motion.

There was one set of circumstances less than two years ago where the board met and decided to recommend an increase. They then took a considerable amount of time to send out the notices to the regional boards, with the result that a very considerable delay occurred. Because of the failure of one board to reach a conclusion, the delay which finally occurred before the increase in wages was granted was altogether out of the ordinary and we are anxious to prevent something like that happening again.

Subsection (4) of section 5 provides for the making of a draft or a draft amending order. The reason for this is that we have had a situation where, while the board appear to have this power already, it has been alleged by some of the legal people that they have not got that power. The result is that if the board publicly notify that they propose to increase wages with effect from a date, very many good employers will in fact increase their workers' wages with effect from the date on which the notice has been published but, in fact, the general run of agricultural workers will not see any increase until a date which is two months later. We suggest there is no reason at all why the board should not have power, if the circumstances so require, to grant an increase within, say, a week of the date on which the decision is taken.

Section 6 proposes to enable the Minister to increase the membership of the board. The Northern Ireland board has six workers and six employers but there are only four workers and four employers on the board here. For some extraordinary reason, the members of the board here are selected by the Minister and no effort is made to try to find out whether or not those appointed to the board are in fact representative of agricultural workers. We feel that the right to nominate should be given to the organisations representing the agricultural workers. For some extraordinary reasons that is not done. There have been some cases where even the people elected to the board have been out of the country for a considerable period and this has not been rectified.

There is also on record a situation where somebody who is a big employer of labour in an area and whose rate of wages is affected by the agricultural rate generally in the county is a neutral representative on the board. We believe the Minister should be very careful when selecting his "neutrals" to ensure that they are in fact neutrals because this business of neutrals sometimes goes a little too far. We are all human enough to feel that if we can help ourselves by doing something, we might be tempted to do it. However, I could not blame that particular individual because on an occasion when this could have been done by him, he did not do so but the temptation is very great. In fact, a large number of workers over which that particular employer had control were being paid a rate which was based on the agricultural rate in the area.

That is not the way these things should be done. We feel that an employer on the board who has with him either a local small farmer or agricultural worker as a workers' representative is not the ideal representation. We believe that tends to leave things open to a little bit of pressure. A farmer who is the employers' representative and a neighbour who is the workers' representative — that neighbour having to depend on him for borrowing machinery—or one of his own employees, over whom he has almost a life and death right, as the workers' representative is not the ideal situation.

We think it would be a very good idea if a lot more care were taken to ensure that the people who are selected to represent the employers and workers on the board—and, in particular, in the case of an individual—should be neutral.

There is another extraordinary situation with regard to the board, that is, if a meeting is properly convened of the central board and nobody turns up but the chairman, due to weather conditions or anything else, the chairman is a quorum and he can make a decision, which seems quite remarkable. There is also a stipulation of the board that if all the members of the board except one vote in one way and only one member disagrees, the chairman and that one member are a majority. It would be pretty hard to find the beating of that anywhere in the country. I know that the Bill has had a battering since 1956——

Mr. Haughey

That is the real test.

Mr. James Tully

——but the fact is that the wages of our agricultural workers are still the lowest in the country.

Mr. S. Dunne

In western Europe.

Mr. James Tully

And the fact is that the hours worked by the workers are the longest on flat rate, again, in western Europe

Mr. Haughey

Deputy Tully should not have taken that so quickly from his colleague behind him. It is not the lowest in western Europe.

Mr. James Tully

Maybe conditions are different in Sicily, but, taking it £ for £, the Minister will find that this is the lowest rate for workers.

Mr. Haughey

I do not want to make out that they are princely. On the other hand, let us not exaggerate.

Mr. James Tully

There is no exaggeration. The rate being paid in State employment, even the Minister's Department, though there is a differential, is related to that. The agricultural worker's rate is recognised as being the lowest rate the law will allow the poorest employer in the area to pay the worst worker he employs. That is the minimum rate and that is the standard rate in this country for farm workers and it is recognised by the State. I think that should not be so.

Mr. S. Dunne

Deputy Tully has gone into the details of the Bill very fully. It seems to me that the provisions set out are of such a nature that the Minister should have no difficulty in accepting the minimal changes in the existing position. One might very well talk of the vanishing farm labourer. In the past 15 years the number of people working for wages on farms has been reduced by about half. This is not something of which the country was not warned. Over a long period, individuals have interested themselves in the condition of the farm labourer. For those who did pursue the cause of the farm worker over the past 20 or 30 years, the results of their efforts have not been satisfactory, have not produced any revolutionary changes but inevitably and invariably have called down the obloquy and the condemnation of the powers that be, the Government of the day and all other parts of the establishment, upon themselves for taking up the case of the agricultural worker.

At one time, it was almost tantamount to preaching red roaring Communism if you spoke up for the agricultural labourer. Indeed, in some places in the remoter fastnesses of rural Ireland, one often took one's safety in one's hand in raising one's voice outside the chapel gate on behalf of the down-trodden agricultural labourer. His condition was such and, indeed, is still such that the wholesale flight of agricultural labourers from rural Ireland was inevitable.

There has never been by any Government an appreciation of the importance of this man, the farm worker. It has often struck me, as it must have struck many others, travelling around this city or any town in Ireland and looking at the superstructure of business and people who do not seem to weave and neither do they spin but who live very well—this vast parasitic superstructure which we seem to have developed in the last number of years—that, somewhere, somebody was working to keep all this going and away down, underneath it all, the man who was working and who is working to keep it all going—and all of us going too: none of us can opt out of this—was the agricultural labourer at the very lowest level. Other grades, the small farmer and the middling size farmer, the working farmer, were there but, down at the very bottom, the real producer is the agricultural labourer. Just consider for a moment the reaction of any young man of imagination today who looks at the rewards available to him for working for a farmer. Remember that they used to say during the war—I think it was in the National Army—"Would you work for a farmer?" It was the last refuge of the damned. Ex-soldiers will remember that.

No young man who is living in a rural area and who, perhaps, because of his background, is fitted only for manual work would voluntarily want to work for the rate of wages he can get on the farm today when all he has to do is to get his fare to England or perhaps get his local TD to get him a job in Dublin, through some of the Cumainn in Dublin, perhaps, or some such fashion. That is a bad situation because it means the continuous denuding of the countryside of the essential youth to create families and to keep the rural population growing. In my view, this situation is due to continuous, callous, unmindful and selfish neglect on the part of the establishment, but particularly the Government, of the agricultural labourer.

It can also be said, of course, that the agricultural worker has lagged behind the industrial worker in wages and in conditions of employment because of the peculiarity of his employment which makes it difficult for him to become trade unionised. There is no question but that the workers in Dublin city and in the cities and towns through the country have had their standard of living improved tremendously in the past half century by the actions of the trade union movement and by the effectiveness of the trade union movement. Because of the difficulty of organising the agricultural worker, usually because he is a lone figure working on a farm in very close contact with his employer, perhaps eating at the same table, perhaps living in the same house, he is not trade union potential in the same sense as is the city or town worker. This fact also has contributed to his low standard of living. It is fortunately true that employers in the mass, wherever you find them, give the workers only what organisation compels them to give—with exceptions, of course. There is the odd decent man who will do the right thing no matter what the cost, without any pressure, but, in the main, employers are not built that way.

The fact that agricultural labourers have not had the benefits of trade union organisations to the same extent as industrial workers has also been responsible in some degree for present conditions. It should be a matter of Government policy, it should be a matter of priority with any Government, to take whatever steps can be taken to get as many of those men in the rural areas as may be persuaded to stay there and the form of persuasion that is the most eloquent form of all is to pay them sufficient to enable them to live there, to marry, to have decent houses to live in, and to bring up their families, to give them decent conditions of employment comparable with what they can find elsewhere.

This Bill proposes very mild steps in that direction. It is not a Bill of a kind that could in conscience be rejected by any Government. It proposes that agricultural labourers should be paid for Church holidays and bank holidays. It is a modest proposal. In a number of county council areas, council workers are able to enjoy both bank holidays and Church holidays. This Bill sets out to secure for farm labourers either one or the other.

Similarly, the Bill seeks to create a definition of overtime for farm working, the time at which overtime begins and at which payment should begin for overtime. It is proposed to define overtime as hours worked after 48 in the week. That, surely, is a reasonable proposition and is not asking too much of the employing agricultural community.

I note from the newspapers that farmers are organising in strength and it would seem to be possible to get vast numbers of farmers to come together in certain towns. Last week it was stated that there were 10,000 west of the Shannon. In the area which I represent and certainly around the counties of Leinster, the farmers are not doing too badly. I recall a time when one would see at the chapel gate the odd ass and trap or pony and trap or, perhaps, a Ford car. You will not see them now. You will not see Ford Prefects or many Morris Minors. At some chapel gates, there are so many Mercedes cars to be seen that one would almost imagine that all the Cabinet were attending Mass there. I am excluding the Ford car used by the Minister for Finance, Mr. Jack Lynch.

Farmers are doing fairly well now, certainly in the areas to which I have referred. Undoubtedly, in the west there is that chronic situation of poverty, or near poverty, which has existed there since Cromwell drove the people across the Shannon, a situation which Father McDyer and others are making valiant attempts to remedy. On good land farmers seem to be able to do well. In this Bill what is asked of them as employers is very little. The Minister should accept without question what is contained in the Bill as a very small gesture towards the vanishing farm labourer.

Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. Haughey)

I am afraid that I have to move that this Bill be rejected. The Bill contains a number of provisions which, unfortunately, I cannot accept. I propose to take these provisions seriatim and to let the House have my views on them. Before doing so, however, perhaps I should say a word about this vexed question of the level of wages paid to the agricultural labourer. I readily agree that this level of wages, to say the least of it, affords very great room for improvement. Of course, the really relevant factor in this matter all the time is the capacity of the farmer to pay. This is a factor from which we can never get away and is one to which we must always have regard in this connection.

The ideal situation, of course, would be that the farmers could be put in a position in which their level of income was such that they could afford to pay the agricultural labourer and give him conditions which would be on a level with those enjoyed by his counterpart in industry and other sectors of employment. Undoubtedly we should set ourselves the objective of bringing farm incomes up to the urban level and in doing that, bring about the position in which the farm labourer could progress with his employer and could be brought up to a level which would equate with that of his counterpart in urban circumstances. These, I am afraid, are ideals. They are something which we are aiming at and striving to achieve. I do not suppose there will be any real disagreement in this House about them as ideals, but, as in most forms of human activity, the ideal is somewhat removed from what is practical. I feel that I should say that whereas we hope that this situation will come about, I am afraid we have not got it at present and we have to be realistic in this matter of the level of agricultural wages and deal with the situation as we find it. In that context, I suppose there would be reasonable agreement, at any rate, that the board has not done a bad job down the years.

In the Long Title, the Bill purports to give effect to a resolution which was adopted by the Agricultural Wages Board at a meeting in April, 1963. I should, however, point out to the House that the board's resolution dealt with a question of public holidays and Church holidays and did not refer to any of the other matters which are contained in this Bill.

Mr. James Tully

We made that clear. We are not claiming that at all.

Mr. Haughey

The provision to give effect to the board's resolution is, as Deputy Tully pointed out, contained in section 3 of the Bill and that section proposes that agricultural workers should be entitled to six public holidays each year or to Church holidays in lieu thereof. My information is that at present many employers allow their workers some Church holidays and/or some public holidays and that the practice varies almost infinitely in various parts of the country. Having regard to the close personal relationship of an informal kind which traditionally links the agricultural employer with his worker and the undoubtedly peculiar circumstances of farming as a profession, great care is necessary if we endeavour to set out in legislation precise obligations and entitlements for both parties.

An amendment to give effect to a proposal of this kind was put forward in 1961 during the passage of the Agricultural Workers (Holidays) Act and was, in fact, at that time rejected by the Dáil. However, I do not want to be taken as saying the last word on this matter at this stage. I have been having it examined and I propose to continue that examination. I assure the sponsors of this Bill that, if I can be satisfied that new legislation is merited, and possible, then I shall recommend to the Government that such legislation be introduced. That is on the specific proposal now in section 3.

Section 4 of the Bill is designed to provide pay at overtime rates for work in excess of a 48-hour week for agricultural workers. This is similar to the provision in relation to industrial workers. The Agricultural Wages Board in May of this year made an order which increased the minimum rates of wages as related to a 44-hour week in the months of November to February and to a week of 50 hours in the remainder of the year. Agricultural workers, therefore, are paid overtime for hours worked in excess of those I mention and have, in effect, an average annual working week of 48 hours.

Mr. James Tully

The Minister has missed the point. The legal beavers say the board are not legally fixing agricultural workers' overtime rates. We are asking that this should be cleared up.

Mr. Haughey

I am saying that is, in effect, what happens because the board fixes a minimum rate of wages related to a certain minimum working week and the rate of wages is, therefore, fixed for a working week of an average annual of 48 hours.

In section 5, the sponsors of the Bill propose a number of changes in existing legislation. The first of these is that the Agricultural Wages Board should fix the conditions of employment of agricultural workers. I do not think such a provision would be capable of implementation. There is a general reference in the Bill to conditions of employment, but I do not think that would suffice. Remember, in the case of the industrial worker, it takes the whole of the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936, to set out conditions. It is also significant that there are other workers whose conditions are specified in legislation and who are not left to the discretion of a State Department or a State board. In other words, the conditions are specifically set out in legislation. I am not at all satisfied in relation to the agricultural worker that it would be practicable, or even desirable, having regard to the widely varying pattern of farming and farming practices— practices which differ, indeed, from farm to farm—to try to prescribe detailed, uniform conditions of employment. There would be very difficult problems of enforcement. It seems to me that the wisest thing to do is to leave these matters as they are, matters to be arranged between the farmer and his workman. There is a traditional relationship of give and take between them.

Mr. Corish

That will obtain for many more years then if the Minister is going to be there for long.

Mr. Haughey

It might not be altogether desirable to upset that traditional relationship.

Mr. Corish

That sort of relationship of bringing home cabbage and potatoes has disappeared.

Mr. Haughey

It has gone. To a great extent, the agricultural worker is now in a seller's market.

Mr. Corish

How will the Minister keep him down on the farm if he does not give him his ordinary holidays?

Mr. Haughey

It is a very real problem. The aspect of the problem of course, about which I hear most is that of farmers who cannot get agricultural workers.

Mr. James Tully

Because they will not pay.

Mr. Corish

They cannot get them because the workers have not the benefit of the provisions in this Bill.

Mr. Haughey

A great many farmers pay a great deal more than the minimum. Deputy Tully knows them.

Mr. James Tully

The organisation Deputy Clinton is connected with has no difficulty in getting farm workers.

Mr. Haughey

In my part of the country, the farmers have very great difficulty because they are in more or less direct competition with the building industry and other types of employment. I do not know that this provision could be implemented. If it could be implemented, I am not sure that it would help the situation.

Mr. Corish

At one time there were Ministers sitting where the Minister is sitting now and they said: "If you introduce legislation giving them a half-day, or a week or two weeks holidays, it just could not operate".

Mr. Haughey

I am not that sort of Minister.

Mr. Corish

The Minister is behaving like that now.

Mr. James Tully

Same script; different Minister.

Mr. Haughey

I have promised to have a look at the holiday provisions. There is another aspect. If you were to lay down some sort of general conditions, there is no doubt they would not fit every area and every type of farm. It would be humanly impossible to devise something that would fit every type of farm and every area and you would, therefore, be prescribing conditions for certain farms and farmers which would be unsuitable elsewhere and possibly inadequate. That would leave the farmer less inclined to take on an agricultural labourer.

Mr. James Tully

None of them takes on a man if he can do without him.

Mr. Haughey

He would probably try to do without him. It is a question of striking a balance and keeping that balance. We have to be fair to both sides. The farmer has problems and difficulties. The agricultural labourer has rights. By tying these, we might easily upset the whole situation. I am not sure that the necessity is as real as the authors of this measure make out it is. I am opposed to it because it seems to me to be practically beyond human capacity to devise conditions suitable and applicable to all the different types of farming we have.

In subsection (2) of section 5, it is suggested that an equal vote at a meeting of an agricultural wages area committee shall be deemed to be a recommendation in favour of the board's proposal. It would be illogical, I think, to provide that, if the employers' members or the workers' members put forward any particular proposal at a meeting of an area committee, upon which there is equality of voting, such a proposal should be deemed to be carried and thereby constitute itself a recommendation to the board in favour of the proposal. The present position is that, if there is equality of voting, no recommendation is made by the committee to the board but the board gets the result of the vote. That seems to me a reasonably logical way——

Mr. James Tully

It holds the whole thing up for two months.

Mr. Haughey

How come?

Mr. James Tully

Because if there is no recommendation, the board cannot move for two months.

Mr. Haughey

Yes, but it is at least aware of the committee's voting.

Mr. James Tully

That buys no loaves for the farm worker.

Mr. Haughey

It would be straining things, I think, to suggest that because there was equality of voting, the matter should be deemed to be carried. I do not think that appertains in any other sphere. It is certainly not something that recommends itself to me.

In subsection (3) of section 5, it is proposed that the period of two months given to a local wages committee within which to make recommendations to the board in relation to a proposal by the board to revise minimum rates of wages should commence as and from the date of the meeting of the board at which the decision to make the order was taken. Deputy Tully spoke about this. At present the period of two months begins on the date on which the notice is given to the area committee of the board. The issue of the notice is a matter for the board itself. There is nothing in the existing legislation to prevent the notice being issued on the day the board take their decision, if they so wish.

Mr. James Tully

But they do not do it.

Mr. Haughey

There is no reason why they should not do it.

Mr. James Tully

But they do not.

Mr. Haughey

It is not a matter of legislation that they do not do it. The legislation does not prevent them doing it.

Mr. James Tully

The legislation should force them to do it.

Mr. Haughey

I am not so sure of that. At least, it does not prevent them from doing it. I think that is as far as we could go. It is a matter for the board after that to decide to do it or not. On this point I am told there is not any significant delay in the issue of these notices. Would Deputy Tully agree with that?

Mr. James Tully

I quoted one case to the Minister where there was a scandalous delay.

Mr. Haughey

There is always the isolated case. Subsection (4) of section 5 purports to provide that when the board make a draft order, they may insert a commencement date in the draft. Again, there does not appear to be anything in the existing legislation which would prevent the board from doing that either.

Mr. James Tully

That is wrong. If the Minister has been briefed they can do it, that is entirely wrong. They are precluded from doing it.

Mr. Haughey

Does the Deputy think I should sack somebody?

Mr. James Tully

No, I am not suggesting that. Certain members make suggestions that homework should be done——

Mr. Haughey

My homework suggests to me that they can do it if they wish. Would the Deputy indicate to me——

Mr. James Tully

I will tell the Minister when replying.

Mr. Haughey

In the meantime, I will maintain my position. Subsection (5) of section 5 of the Bill is designed to compel the board to define overtime employment. I have already said on the other section that agricultural workers do receive overtime payment for work which is done in excess of 50 hours for part of the year and in excess of 44 hours for the remainder of the year. I do not see in what other way overtime should be defined.

In section 6 there is provision for enabling the membership of the board to be increased. There are already 12 members of the board—four employers, four workers, three neutrals and a chairman. That would seem to me to be reasonably adequate for a board of this sort.

Mr. James Tully

Six and six, and no neutrals and a chairman.

Mr. Haughey

That is not your proposal.

Mr. James Tully

It is. That is what they have in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Haughey

The section reads:

Subsection (3) of section 5 of the Agricultural Wages Act, 1936 shall have effect as if the words "at least" were inserted immediately before "twelve members", "eleven members" and "four members" where those words respectively occur.

I took it that this was a proposal to increase the membership.

Mr. James Tully

There are two alternatives. You can either increase the membership or it will be increased anyway because there will be 13 if there is a chairman.

Mr. Haughey

I felt the idea of putting in "at least" was to increase the membership. There again, I would have thought 12 was sufficient. There is no real need to increase the size of the board. These are my objections to the Bill as it is drafted at present. On the basis of these objections, I would ask the House to reject the Bill.

Mr. Corish

There is not one good point in the Bill? It is peculiar that Deputy Tully with his long experience could not make even one good proposal. It is fantastic.

Mr. Haughey

Of course, he could. He has.

Mr. Corish

The Minister has not conceded one section.

Mr. Haughey

I have conceded that in section 3 he has a point, which I will have looked at. Deputy Tully and I have different responsibilities in this matter. I have to try to have regard to the balance of right between two sections, the worker and the employer.

Mr. Corish

The balance in this case is certainly one-sided.

Mr. Haughey

Deputy Tully quite rightly takes the view that it is his job to fight for the agricultural worker. That is what he is doing. Deputy Corish must not get cross with me——

Mr. Corish

I am not cross; it may be my manner of speaking.

Mr. Haughey

——if I take up a judicial position.

Mr. James Tully

The Minister forgets I represent a farming community.

Mr. Corish

I do, too, more farmers than the Minister.

Mr. Sweetman

I never heard a Minister for Agriculture make a greater confession of failure in relation to his agricultural policies. I was amazed by the Minister's opening remarks. I thought that at least he would have tried to cover up his failure and not openly say at the beginning that the whole cause of his objection was that he had failed to put agriculture in a reasonably prosperous condition. The fact, of course, is that the Government's agricultural policy has been a complete failure and that the farmers at present are in an extremely parlous position, partly because of the failure of that policy, partly because of the manner in which the bottom has fallen out of the cattle trade and partly because of the weather. I know the Minister has no responsibility for that but he made no real effort to counter the disastrous farm weather conditions——

Mr. Haughey

I did so.

Mr. Sweetman

——because his alteration of the Wheat Order does not do the slightest good, or, if that alteration was any good, a fair-minded Minister, who appreciated the problem, would have covered the case of the farmer who had delivered wheat earlier and who is not covered by the order until deliveries this week.

Mr. Haughey

If it was no good, why did the NFA ask me to do it?

Mr. Sweetman

They asked the Minister to do a great deal more than that.

Mr. Haughey

They also agreed with me that you could not cover the farmer who had already delivered his wheat.

Mr. Sweetman

The farmer who had already delivered his wheat could be covered.

An Ceann Comhairle

We cannot deal with the Wheat Order here.

Mr. Sweetman

It was done in earlier years. The Minister made these objections because of the failure of his cattle policy.

An Ceann Comhairle

We cannot go over cattle policy.

Mr. Sweetman

We must at least touch on the various aspects of the Minister's self-confessed failure, Sir. The fact, of course, is that the choice here in relation to agricultural workers is not as simple as the Minister would try to make the House believe. If the farmers have not got the capacity to pay—on that I agree with the Minister —it is the Government's job to ensure they have that capacity. Unless they are given the capacity to make an improvement in agricultural conditions, there will not be any agricultural labourers at all left to work on the land.

The fact is that at present—and in this the Minister was right—there is the gravest difficulty in obtaining skilled agricultural labourers. The fact also is—notwithstanding what was said by Deputy Dunne—that nine-tenths of the farmers do give conditions akin to those suggested in this Bill. In fact, I think, if I may say so, that the approach by Deputy Dunne to this matter was rather different from the approach by Deputy Tully, and did not assist the Bill as much as Deputy Tully's approach did.

I know of no case of an agricultural worker in County Kildare who is not paid for a Church holiday on which he does not work. Of course, he does not work. No agricultural worker works on a Church holiday in my county. I admit frankly that I do not know what the practice or procedure is in other counties. I have yet to hear of a case in Kildare where a worker has his wages docked because there is a Church holiday in the week and he does not work on that Church holiday. So far as that is concerned, to put it in this Bill would be merely writing in something that is already, in fact, the law.

Mr. Haughey

Surely there is one exception in the Deputy's constituency, in the racing stables.

Mr. Sweetman

The case of the racing stables is rather akin to Sunday work which is not the ordinary type of work which must be done during the week. There is also an exception in relation to dairy work—cows have to be milked, and the Minister has failed in that he has not yet produced a five-day cow. I am not counting that type of agricultural work which is obviously quite different.

The main point in this Bill is to ensure that agricultural workers get as fair a crack of the whip in relation to holidays as the industrial workers. The fact of the matter is that if they are not given it, there will not be any of them left. If the farmers are not —and I believe they are not—in a position to pay, it is up to the Minister and the Government to provide a system by which they would be able so to do. There are a variety of ways in which that could be done.

For example, it could be done by an extension of rates relief for farmers. It could be done by way of direct subsidy. It could be done by way of an increase in prices. There are a great number and variety of ways, but the fact remains that the Minister has himself admitted he has not got sufficient confidence in his own agricultural policy, or in his own ability to ensure that the Government will make up the difference in one of these ways. That is why he is opposing this Bill.

At present the farmers, to put it mildly, are in an extremely difficult position. The credit squeeze in England, as well as the credit squeeze here, has had an immense effect on their market. The reduction in cattle prices is probably largely due to the credit squeeze in England as well as the credit squeeze here. Yet we see no sign of the Minister making any effort to right these things. All he does in relation to a Bill like this is to say that the farmer has not got the capacity, and, therefore, he is opposing the Bill. That is the wrong approach for a competent and constructive Minister for Agriculture.

Mr. Haughey

As neatly ridden two horses as ever I saw.

Mr. Treacy

I spoke in this House on two Bills moved by the Labour Party designed primarily to improve the status and conditions of the agricultural worker. The first Bill was introduced some 12 months ago and its intent and purpose was to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board, and to give the agricultural worker the right, which every other worker in the country has, to go to the Labour Court and have his conditions of employment, his wages, and all things appertaining thereto, decided by that State tribunal.

On that occasion I seconded that Bill which merely sought to give the agricultural worker the same right as that enjoyed by every other worker in the country, the right, when in difficulty in respect of his wages or conditions, to bring his case to the Labour Court. That was repudiated by the then Minister, Deputy Smith, and we had the spectacle of the Government Party and the Fine Gael Party marching shoulder to shoulder into the Lobby to oppose the Bill which we proposed to secure that advancement for this category of workers.

Tonight we have another Bill before the House which seeks to concede to the agricultural worker the right to public holidays which all other workers enjoy as laid down by statute, and to concede to them appropriate rights of overtime pay for night work, Saturday work, or Sunday work, as the case may be. We also seek some change in the autocratic Agricultural Wages Board which by their very composition, and by the mind and attitude of the personnel of the board, are as incapable now, as they were in the past, of doling out anything like justice to the workers directly under their control.

When one considers that this Bill merely seeks to give to these workers the rights that have been enjoyed by other workers for a long number of years in respect of payment for public holidays, overtime rates, and the engendering of some element of democracy in the Agricultural Wages Board, one would expect that this Bill, which I might call a compromise measure, would have the support of the Minister for Agriculture. I was shocked and disappointed by the attitude of this new, and as we thought, progressive-minded Minister, when he decided tonight to carry on with the same outlook, the same policy, and the same philosophy as Deputy Smith.

We in the Labour Party and in the trade union movement were aware of the bias engendered by him against the trade union movement which came to a head in the crisis of his resignation when he told the country at large, and the workers in particular, what he thought of the Irish trade union movement. He is on record as saying that they were something intrinsically evil and should be put down. We had hoped that when that kind of mentality had passed from the office of Minister for Agriculture, we could look for a squarer, a better, and a more honest deal, but the Minister has done himself a great disservice, and he has done the agricultural community at large a very great injustice, by the attitude he adopted here tonight in opposing the simple measure which the Labour Party put forward as the minimum required to confer some dignity and some status on the agricultural worker.

He has taken up an attitude here tonight as the defender of the agricultural community in particular. He has forgotten that an integral part of that community are the workers, the main producers without whom agriculture would come to nothing. He says he is concerned about the capacity of the farmers to pay. The farmers, like any other section of our community, realise full well that any commodity they require for the purpose of accelerating production on the land has to be paid for. They like to buy what is best, whether it be fertilisers or farm machinery. They must realise, and I am sure many good farmers do realise, that the most important commodity, labour, must be well paid for, particularly if they are to get the kind of intelligence, outlook, technical know-how and experience which are required for agricultural science today.

The Minister has purported to represent the big rancher of this country tonight, the man who is so highly mechanised that he does not need to labour on the land. He has spoken of the man with the bullock, the stick and the dog, and he would surely mechanise the dog as well. In these times of economic crisis and with the impending threat of free trade and the kind of redundancy and unemployment which we envisage, we have a right to look to agriculture, which it is thought will be getting a better deal in the present negotiations, to absorb some of our redundant and unemployed personnel. We cannot hope to attract people to the land unless we are prepared to give them decent conditions, at least conditions comparable with those of their industrial brothers and sisters.

This, if I may use a vulgarism, is a rotten deal which the Minister is proposing for agricultural workers. He still regards them as second-class citizens. Clearly, they are the most abused and the most downtrodden section of our working classes, the most under paid and underprivileged workers in the western hemisphere. It is inconceivable that there should be a denial here tonight, in 1965, of payment to them for public holidays, of the demand for overtime rates and some better deal instead of this board which we regard as autocratic and dictatorial, a board, as Deputy Tully pointed out, comprising four employers' representatives, four workers' representatives and four so-called neutrals who invariably vote with the employers' section when any vexatious matter has to be determined. Imagine a board in which, if the employers' and workers' representatives and the neutral members do not turn up, if no one turns up at the meeting except the chairman, then the chairman constitutes the meeting; he constitutes a quorum and he may determine business there and then. This Government stands over that sham and hypocrisy as far as the agricultural workers are concerned.

This fraud should not be tolerated. How can one expect workers to remain on the land in these conditions? Remember, the agricultural worker is no fool. You are not dealing with some kind of ignoramus or moron who does not realise the age in which we live or the kind of conditions which obtain in Britain and in the countries of the Common Market and the standard of living which agricultural workers can and should enjoy.

Is it not a fact that the agricultural worker, his wife and family, are kept to a subsistence level of existence? Is it any wonder that they are flying from the land and that since 1958, almost 50,000 persons have fled from the land of Ireland to the urban areas and beyond to Britain? I cannot understand the mentality of the Minister in opposing these minimal demands of the Labour Party, especially when people outside the realm of politics altogether are vitally concerned about the position of the agricultural worker in particular. The Minister may be biassed because this motion was sponsored by the Labour Party, by an officer of a national union, as Deputy James Tully is, who has a bounden duty to do all in his power to upgrade the status of these workers.

Other people have spoken, too. Conscientious men on the land are concerned, and many farmers do pay something over and above the minimum rate. The Church is also concerned in this matter and Dr. Birch is on record as making a strong appeal for a better deal for the agricultural worker. We echo his sentiments when he said that having regard to all the lavish subsidies which this Government conferred on agriculture down the years, it was high time that some kind of subsidy be conferred on the human beings on the land, on the labourers on the land in order to assist them to remain there and to live in at least frugal comfort. If the Minister is opposed to a decent wage and reasonable conditions, will he please consider conferring a subsidy on these human beings such as is done in respect of the heifer and the calf, in order to keep the workers there and to stimulate some worthwhile increase in agricultural production?

While this archaic, outmoded and niggardly-minded attitude of the Department of Agriculture continues, there can be no worthwhile increase in production. There can be no improvement in the land of Ireland unless regard is had first of all to human beings. At a time when there have been status increases amounting to thousands of pounds per year to higher civil servants attached to the various Departments, including the Department of Agriculture, it is particularly galling that we should have the Minister saying he rejects these simple proposals of ours here tonight to improve the lot of the most neglected section of our community, agricultural workers. We must pose the question: where is the sense of justice or fair play when this kind of thing can come about?

As I said in my earlier remarks, it has been my experience to be associated with the two Labour Bills to improve the lot of this category of workers. We were not altogether surprised at the opposition we met on the last occasion when we sought for the agricultural workers the right to go to the Labour Court, and to abolish this Agricultural Wages Board which is nothing but a farce, a dictatorial, autocratic board which can never confer justice on the agricultural worker, as the Minister knows. We have sought in this measure to make that board more democratic and our endeavours have been rejected. No attempt has been made by the Minister to compromise or to accept in any way the things which he must know are right for these people. He has offered from this House to the agricultural workers a colossal insult and that kind of attitude certainly is not conducive to the climate which we all want to create, to accelerate the wheels of industry and to stimulate agriculture in these trying times. While we have misgivings on possible free trade with Britain, on full entry into the European Economic Community, it would be a good thing if at least we were forced into an amalgamation with a number of countries which could impose on the Government what the Labour Party has failed to do to-night, to give at least these minimal conditions to the most productive workers in the country, the agricultural workers.

Debate adjourned.