One of the objections the Labour Party have is that this is not agricultural labour and that therefore the labourers should be treated as navvies. I wonder are the Labour Party aware of the fact that where agricultural labour exists here, namely, in the Corporation employment at Crooksling, that the agricultural labourers there are getting 30/- more than the agricultural labourers outside for ten hours a week less work? They cannot have it both ways. If they have to pay here 30/- over the right standard wages people cannot complain.
SHANNON ELECTRIFICATION SCHEME. - DEBATE RESUMED.
It is a pity, as Senator O'Farrell remarked in moving his motion, that the patient is not here when the medicine is being administered. We, unfortunately, have to administer the medicine in the absence of the patient. Until this motion was introduced here one would imagine that some of the Senators who already addressed the House on this question never heard of any trouble on the Shannon scheme. Senator the Earl of Mayo displayed a delightful ignorance of the conditions under which the workers have to live, and rather railed at the Labour Party for introducing such a matter into this House. I do not propose to deal very much longer with the Earl of Mayo and his attitude on the question, but at any rate he seemed to be unaware of the fact that the ordinary working man had a family to maintain. Then we had Senator Bennett, who, judging by the way he spoke, seemed to be under the impression that we conferred a Ministerial position on him yesterday. He seemed to be an apologist for the Government. "The Government cannot afford it," and so on; it is always thus where the working class are concerned. The Government cannot afford it, cannot pay, and so on. Senator Keane rather disapproved of the action of the Labour Party in dealing with this matter in the way they are, and hinted that industrial action was the proper way to deal with it. Senator Keane, if he carries his mind a little back, will remember that he organised the farmers in the County of Waterford to enforce starvation wages on the agricultural labourers of that district, and it was under his leadership that the farmers and workmen were pauperised in that county. So that from his point of view if he thinks over that enterprise he will realise that industrial action is not to the advantage always of employers and workers. It has been pointed out that this scheme got the whole-hearted support of the Labour Party because they believed it was going to do good for the whole country, and the Minister here declared that the contractors are perfectly satisfied with the labourers and their output, and further said that everyone would be perfectly happy at the wages the contractors were prepared to offer. Innocent young people that we were, when a Minister of the Government made a statement here, we unfortunately accepted it in good faith. We learned a lesson in that matter, because apparently the contractor is the Government and not Siemens-Schuckert.
The Government lays down what the wages are to be. It is being pointed out that the wages under the Shannon scheme should be comparable to the wages paid to agricultural labourers. There is no analogy between the people employed on this scheme and ordinary agricultural labourers. I know from a long experience that there is a kind of bond of sympathy which exists between the agricultural labourer and the farmer and his employee. When a man is sick, a farmer does not dock his wages. When a man is in trouble, he comes to his aid either in food or money to help him over his trying period and to help his family.
In addition the agricultural labourer has a house at a cheap rent and certain perquisites from his employer such as milk, fuel and potatoes. The other unfortunate men have nothing. From that point of view alone there is no analogy between the ordinary farm labourer and the man going to work on the Shannon scheme. I give Senator Dowdall credit for being a comparatively good employer, but he has not told the Seanad that he believes 32/- is a living wage for any man, single or married. Take the case of a married man who gets employment on this scheme, although there was to be no room for married men on it. If you take an average family of six, consisting of a father, mother and four children, what does the wage amount to? If you take three meals a day for each member of the family, that represents 18 meals, or 376 meals in a week. What does that work out at? It works out at less than 3d. a meal per head. Do you believe it is possible to produce a meal for a dog for 3d. not to mention a human being, leaving out anything for incidentals, and for such a luxury as a pint of porter or champagne? That is the reasonable standard of living that Senator Bennett would commit the Irish worker to. Is it the standard of living the Seanad believes the working man should be committed to? Are you going to do away with the sacred bonds of marriage and bring only single men to work on the Shannon scheme? No married man could possibly work on the Shannon scheme at the wages and live. Even the Ministers and even the contractors are not as callous as some of the Senators who have spoken here. According to the newspapers an increase has been given on the miserable wage that was offered. Some of the Senators who have spoken said the wages should be 32/- and no more, and if the men do not take it let them go on tramp. Senator Bennett said he approved of a man stealing if he was hungry, but he does not believe a man should be fed when he is working. The wages provided on the Shannon scheme do not permit a man being fed.
The Germans who came here to supervise the job have already had a strike. No one condemned the Germans for going on strike against the conditions that obtain on the job. That was kept under the surface, but the labour adviser was very quickly on the job. The grievances of the German invaders were very quickly attended to and remedied. The money for the scheme has to be found. We gave this scheme our whole-hearted support in this and in the other House. Senator Sir John Keane, who unfortunately has just left the House, told the Minister and the Government that if it was handed over to the Germans to carry out it was quite possible the finances would not be forthcoming. It is just possible the Senator is organising opposition to the financing of the scheme. At any rate we, in the Irish Labour movement, will resist the scheme with all the force we can command, and will resist the enforcement of coolie conditions on Irish workers.
On reading over the motion, I am sorry that Senator O'Farrell has brought it before the Seanad unless the Labour Party desired to call attention to the wages of 32/- a week. To ask the Seanad to say that the general interests of the State and the success of the undertaking are to be dependent on whether the wages are to be 32/- a week or not is rather more than it should be asked to say. The Seanad is not a proper jury to decide whether labour should be paid 32/-, 42/- or 50/-. I am a great believer in organised labour. I do not believe we could manage our concerns if labour were not organised, and unless we could deal with leaders instead of having to deal with a crowd. Labour can fight those concerned as well in Limerick as in any other place, so that I think it is hardly fair to expect a declaration upon such a scheme here. I doubt if such would be in the interests of Labour. For instance, supposing the decision went against Labour on a vote, it might be taken as an indication that the Seanad considered 32/- quite sufficient. The wage is not, I say again, a generous one, and not one that any of us would give if we could help it. However, I do not think the Seanad is a jury to say whether the State is or is not right in connection with the wages paid. I doubt if any decision by the Seanad would do any good unless Senators would be satisfied in having attention drawn to the question. I wonder is the Seanad ready to take the risk of having a wrong interpretation placed on such a decision? There is a risk, and it may be quoted as much against Labour as it would be in favour of the Government. I doubt if it is a wise thing for Senators belonging to the Labour Party to ask the Seanad to vote on this question. I think Senator O'Farrell and the Labour Party were right in bringing the motion forward and ventilating it, but I doubt if they are wise in their own interests in having a vote on it.
Will a motion be accepted to the effect that the Seanad is not the tribunal to decide this matter?
CATHAOIRLEACH
The discussion on the motion cannot terminate to-day, because it has been arranged that the Minister shall have an opportunity of reading what has been said and making any reply that occurs to him. If the motion is withdrawn, I take it that the Seanad would adhere to the promise and give the Minister an opportunity of speaking. If no other Senators wish to speak to-day, we will adjourn the discussion to the next meeting.
I want to make a few remarks dealing with what was said by Senator O'Farrell and other Senators. At the beginning of the discussion I think Senator O'Farrell said that every form of occupation in the Shannon scheme should be considered an engineering occupation. I thought that a fallacy, and a statement easy to rebut. To take an instance, one could hardly hold that those who sank the foundations at a place like Dunsink should be considered astronomers and should get astronomers' wages. There are certain forms of unskilled labour outside navvies' labour. It is not so much the fault of the Government that wages were restricted as the capacity of the country to pay them. When I say that, I mean that in the long run every sheltered trade must press on the one that is unsheltered, that being agriculture. Eighty per cent. of these people hold less than 40 acres, and you cannot prevent farmers from sweating their children. All agricultural labour is sweated labour. There is nothing to prevent a farmer utilising the help of his family. If the Labour Party were able to protect the children I would support them. Who is this vote against? It seems to me that the fight is really against the child of the farmer who toils in an unsheltered trade.
I think there is also another fallacy. The Shannon scheme need not be considered as if it will go on for ever at 32/- a week. I understand the Shannon scheme is to be concluded in three years. The wages of 32/- were compared with those of people who come from the land. The Civic Guard was mentioned. The Civic Guard is a restricted service with special standards, and I think the same standard might justly be applied to such work as there is on the Shannon scheme for three years. That is to say, it need not necessarily be recruited from married men. It is a fallacy to think that the wages offered any labourer are necessarily wages to support a family of four. The Civic Guards are not recruited from married men with families of four. It goes back to the one fallacy that the Shannon scheme is to be the standard for continuous employment in this country.
I tried last Sunday to see for myself the conditions under which these people live in the barracks on the Shannon. I was unable to go, but I got some of the details of the conditions under which they live. These are the food rations and on one side I will give the Army rations as compared with them. In the Army the daily ration is: 16 ozs. of bread, 2 ozs. of butter, 5/8 oz. of tea, 2¾ ozs. sugar and 14 ozs. potatoes and half a pound of meat. As against that the daily ration issued to the men on the Shannon scheme is 22 ozs. of bread, 4 ozs. of butter, 40 ozs. of potatoes, and the same amount of meat as in the Army. These are the conditions under which they live. There is a heated room, a bed with three blankets and two sheets and a mattress that is supposed to be proof against parasitic insects. It is quite easy for anyone to make great game of labour, organised or unorganised. Really, the facts of the case must be considered. I would not have spoken on this subject had I not been confronted with a threat that forces which were unconstitutional were to be employed. I think that is a monstrous thing, that Labour has formed itself into an exotic colony in this country which refuses to owe allegiance to the country. They have imported patriots from abroad who use the argument of patriotism.
You would have no country at all but for Labour. Make no mistake about that. You could not fight against the Black-and-Tans were it not for Labour.
Perfectly so, but the sufferings which it entailed were not confined to one class. As far as I see the opposition and the threat of unconstitutional force comes from a party which calls itself a Labour Party and does not limit its membership to citizens in this country necessarily. I am not out against Labour. I consider myself, whether I would be entitled to become a member of the Labour Party or not, a worker. I do not wish to keep the House any longer, but I do want to clear up that matter in regard to the food rations. As regards the wages paid, the Shannon is not the only work in Ireland where wages of 32/- a week are paid and accepted. I have heard that on the Owenmore river a wage of 30/- a week was accepted without any protest.
Has that scheme started yet?
I could not tell you.
It has not yet started. So much for your facts.
When we hear allegations as to starvation wages, I must remind the House that there are certain large forces engaged in winning sustenance from the earth who do not get any wages at all. These are the farmers and the farmers' children. I would willingly consent to give these labourers employed on the Shannon scheme 50/- a week, or even £5, if I were not afraid that Senator Farren would condemn this as slave-driving and that this was given to make other people work at a less figure. If one is to consider 10d. an hour paid to some of these men—in order to stimulate others who get 8d. to work more—as a bribe, then the logical conclusion is that every effort made to increase wages in cases in which it is merited is a bribe. I think that is fair.
Let us all work at 32/- a week. I am willing if you are.
I am afraid I would not be fit for it.
I did it before. I know what it is.
I must not be regarded as insisting that the limits of the wages should be 32/-. It is not necessarily the Government, but it is the financial resources of the country that have to meet these wages, and in the long run the financial resources of the country are the unprotected farmers.
Senators will remember that at the passing of the Bill inaugurating the Shannon scheme a certain section in this House were anxious that the details of that scheme should be inquired into and examined, including the wages proposed to be paid to the workers. On that occasion members of the Labour Party refused to consent to any such investigation and helped the Minister to pass this measure in a very hasty manner. I have heard it now stated that in similar circumstances, the Labour members would act in the same way and pay no regard whatever to the question of wages that should be paid to the workers in that undertaking. I hold in any undertaking in this country, whether it is carried out by a Government or by a private individual, the time to settle the wages question is before the works are started and not when the works are partly under way. If it is found that the Labour Party will take the opportunity of urging on Governments or private individuals to start industries and keep the matter of wages, and strikes for increase of wages, until the works are partly commenced, that will have the effect of preventing any men with money from investing their money on any new industry in this country.
I am not going into the question of whether this 32/- per week is sufficient or not. I have a return here from the Ministry of Industry and Commerce giving the wages paid in the different counties to agricultural labourers and in the different drainage works throughout the country. There may be circumstances in those cases that would have the effect of increasing the very low wages. I have before me a statement of the wages paid to the agricultural labourer in the County Dublin, which were fixed by agreement. The wages in the outer portion of the county, outside the 10-mile limit, are 34/6 a week without any perquisites whatever. That agreement is signed by the representatives of the farmers and of the Labour Party.
They are not navvies.
Is it quite true to say that they have no appurtenances?
That is admitted; but that is for farm labourers and not for an engineering job.
Is it the point that the farm labourer is a much inferior man?
Oh, no.
I hold that the farm labourer, especially in the tillage districts of the country, is a skilled labourer. He is doing work that no navvy could do.
And vice versa.
If he was satisfied, and the Irish labour body to which he is affiliated was satisfied, for the last two years that a wage of 34/6 was sufficient, I cannot see how it can be said that 32/- is so very much under the mark. There was one other matter referred to in the debate which is mainly responsible for bringing me on my feet.
Senator Linehan has referred to the agreement that exists between the Union and the farmers in County Dublin. He has not told you that there is a provision for a harvest bonus in that agreement.
Yes, there is £3 for a harvest bonus.
And that increases the wages.
By one shilling a week.
By 1/6 a week.
It has been stated that in the County of Waterford the action of the party led by Senator Sir John Keane was responsible for the great poverty that now exists in the county amongst farmers and labourers. What are the facts as regards the position in that county? I am very glad to say that peace exists at present there, notwithstanding the fact that the Transport Union spent £43,000 in subsidising an attack on the farmers of that county, in putting forward not alone a claim for excessive wages but a claim for their land. In addition to the £43,000 spent, which would relieve a good deal of the unemployment now existing, the houses and the property of 150 of these farmers were burned out, costing another £20,000. I submit that all this money was spent foolishly. If that were available now it would help greatly in relieving unemployment. I might say that it was the action of the farmers of the County Waterford which has saved the situation as regards every man being entitled to work his own farm in the way he thought best.
CATHAOIRLEACH
The debate now stands adjourned. I am just reminded that the same difficulty, if we do not meet on Monday to dispose of this business, will arise on Tuesday, because the Minister will be engaged very actively on Tuesday in another place, and probably up to very late on Tuesday, so that it is extremely likely that if we did not meet on Monday we would not be able to accomplish what we had in mind. It is the privilege of Senator O'Farrell to wind up this debate, therefore I think it is better to revert to our original idea and meet on Monday. It may involve a holiday on Tuesday, but I think it is better to meet on Monday at 3 o'clock.
There is another matter to which I wish to refer, and that is as to the more economic and efficient distribution of our time. For the last three years a good deal of emergency legislation has been put through. We never knew exactly when we would be wanted to meet or how long we would be occupied when we did meet. We were constantly being asked, and did so with a considerable amount of grumbling, to push through important Bills without really adequate time for their consideration, with the result that our meetings were rather spasmodic and the public got the impression, I think, that we were not giving the consideration to Bills that a House like this was intended to give to them. Speaking for myself, I do think that the Seanad would perform its functions with greater advantage to the State if we could arrange our business, as it were, so as to ensure even for the so-called formal measures adequate and full discussion. I think that could best be accomplished, now that these emergency measures are out of the way, if we could arrange, I do not mean sessions, but say, fortnightly, or even weekly sittings at a time so as to prevent inconvenience to Senators—the summoning of them from all parts of the Free State with, perhaps, only a couple of hours' work for them, and then having to go back to their homes next day, to return again in the following week. If we could, in the future, so arrange our business as to provide for a week or a fortnight's continuous work at a time, I think it might be found to be a very great improvement.
Allow me to suggest one other thing, which perhaps may be found to be of some help to our new Senators. Every Bill that is introduced into the Dáil, the moment it is read a second time and printed, every Senator gets a copy of it. If this same Bill is altered in Committee to any material extent, there is a reprint of it, and every Senator gets a copy of that also. When Senators get copies of these Bills, if they are interested in them, and if at the same time they would follow the discussion that takes place in the other House on them, they would find their minds supplied with abundant information on the material points in them before they reach this House. Therefore, when the Bills reach this House Senators would know something about them beforehand. They would have a grasp of all the material points in them and would be in a position to discuss them fully when they reach this House. I am only throwing that out as a suggestion because it is often said here by Senators, when Bills come up, that they have been sprung upon them, that they know nothing about them as the Stage reached was only a Second Reading one. As a matter of fact, every one of these Bills will have been in Senators' hands for days or perhaps weeks before they reach this House for Second Reading. Senators can also have the benefit of reading the debates on the same Bills in the Dáil, because these debates are supplied to them within two days of their taking place. I am just throwing that out as a suggestion in the hope that it may help us later on, if we can, to arrange a more definite, economical and efficient distribution of our time. The Seanad now stands adjourned until Monday, December 14th, at 3 o'clock.
The Seanad adjourned at 5.35 p.m.