During the discussion in Committee it was suggested that the term "owner" used in the definition section in connection with agricultural land might have too restrictive a meaning. I am advised that it was probable the term would be interpreted to exclude an occupier of agricultural land. I do not see why we should have any ambiguity about it and, therefore, I am proposing to substitute the word "occupier" for the term "owner."
Holidays (Employees) Bill, 1938—Final Stages.
Government amendment:—
In page 4, Section 2, sub-section (2), line 26, to delete the word "owner" and substitute therefor the word "occupier."
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In page 4, Section 2, sub-section (2), line 33, immediately after the word "land" to insert the words "situated in a county borough or urban district."
We had a good deal of discussion on an amendment somewhat similar to this on the last occasion. I took it that the Minister's objection then was that my amendment was not sufficiently specific and definite, and as the amendment was then worded it did not convey a clear meaning. I assume the same objection cannot be urged against this amendment, because the term "situated in a county borough or urban district" is really a well-known legal definition. I hope the Minister will see his way to accept the amendment.
I am afraid I cannot do that. My objection to Senator Baxter's amendment, moved in Committee, on the ground that it was ambiguous, was only incidental to the main objection, which was that it proposed to differentiate between workers not upon the basis of the work they did but upon the basis of the district in which they performed the work. My main objection to this amendment is the same as my main objection to the earlier amendment moved by the Senator and it is that the work performed by individuals who come within this definition should carry the same rights and obligations no matter where performed. I submit that it would be unwise to provide for different conditions in respect of that work when performed in an urban district or when performed in a rural district. If there is any case at all for the inclusion of these workers, they should be included no matter in what part of the country they do their work. I am not prepared to accept the amendment. I think these workers, who come within the definition which the Senator is seeking, should come within the terms of the Bill, irrespective of whether they do their work in an urban district or in a rural area.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment:—
In page 4, Section 2, sub-section (2)—
(a) in line 43, to insert after the word "farming" the words "poultry farming, market gardening,";
(b) in line 45, to delete the words "a market garden or."
This amendment is in two parts. During the course of the discussion in Committee I invited the views of Senators as to whether workers employed on land used as a market garden should come within the scope of the Bill. I gathered from the expressions of opinion that I received on that occasion that the general feeling of the House, with some opposition, was in favour of having an amendment of this kind put down, that is, an amendment to exclude from the scope of the Bill workers who are employed wholly or mainly in connection with market gardens. I am strengthened in the belief that the amendment should be inserted in the Bill by the fact that such workers are, in any event, included within the definition of agricultural workers in the Agricultural Wages Act, and, as I indicated already, in framing this Bill we decided to leave outside its scope, in the main, the classes of workers who come within the Agricultural Wages Act, having the belief that any amendment in the laws relating to their working conditions should be effected by an amendment of that Act rather than by a Bill of this kind. During the course of the discussion in Committee a question was asked as to whether poultry farming was agricultural work for the purposes of the Bill. On looking into the point I found that possibly workers on poultry farms would not be classed as agricultural workers as the Bill stood. I think they should be classed as agricultural workers; they are classed as agricultural workers under the Agricultural Wages Act. Consequently, I am moving the amendment here to include poultry farming within the definition of agricultural work; that is, to exclude from the Bill workers who are wholly or mainly employed in connection with poultry farming.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 4, by leave, withdrawn.
Question—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
Before the Bill passes I think it is only fitting that I should again make my protest against this policy of the Minister. I am not going to delay the House for any length, except to point out that there are two big problems before this country to-day. The first and the biggest is to try to keep the people on the land, and the next is to put people into permanent employment. Now, this Bill is going to do neither one nor the other. It is definitely, in my opinion, going to drive more people off the land. The latest figures available from the Minister's own Department indicate that in 1938 there were actually 19,000 fewer people in male employment on the land than in 1937. In this measure to which the House has been asked to agree you are definitely drawing a line between the people who live in the town and work in the town and the people who work in the country. One will be entitled to have holidays and must have holidays, while the others cannot. I should like the Minister to tell the House, and to tell the country, how in face of such a policy as that he hopes to keep the people on the land. It cannot be done. It becomes impossible, because what the Minister is doing is actually unnatural. Another Minister has set up a commission to inquire into the whole situation regarding agriculture, and its future, production, efficiency, and all the rest of it. My view is that no matter what that other Minister tries to do, so long as the Minister for Industry and Commerce pursues the policy which has been embodied in this and other Bills, it is quite hopeless to talk of bettering the conditions in agriculture. You are definitely creating in the minds of the people whom you want to stay on the land the feeling and the attitude that in the towns and cities they can, by the operations of the law, get something which will be denied them if they stay in the country. Now, that is all wrong. As I urged before, if you want to better the conditions of the people you should begin in the country and, with the land as a basis, order and regulate your life. Let what you do in the cities and towns bear some relation to what it is possible to do for the people on the land.
The fact of course is, that our tillage area in 1938 was lower than it was in 1937. Of course it could not be otherwise, with 19,000 fewer people working on the land in 1938 than there were in 1937. You cannot work miracles on the land any more than in any other business or factory. You cannot get the work done if the men and women are not there to do it. While they are flying away you cannot hope to have increased tillage, and above all you cannot hope to carry out the policy which the Ministry and the Executive have been standing behind as a land policy for the last five or six years. If one came to examine the position in the towns, I have not the slightest doubt that, while in certain industries the Minister might produce figures sufficiently convincing to make certain people believe there was a bettering of the position with regard to employment, there are other occupations and trades—like the building trade—where you could definitely trace a decline in the numbers of people employed there one year after another. It will be seen, therefore, that although the Minister is legislating the Minister is not succeeding in solving or even attempting to solve the biggest problems which the country has to face. In my view, the legislation which he is asking this House to enact is doing the very opposite. I greatly fear that, if we want to get on, we should go back on some of the legislation which the Minister has been asking us to pass.
A Chathaoirligh, most of the Senators who have spoken on the Second Reading of this Bill have stressed the importance of Sections 12 and 13, and rightly so, because those sections mark one of those improvements all too rare in our legislative history, or in any legislative history, where the Legislature by taking thought of the well-being of the workers in domestic avocations have paid tribute to the essential importance of their role and their vital contribution to the common good. The proposals of the Bill are not revolutionary. They do not go beyond what is the common practice amongst good employers. When this was pointed out by Senator Counihan in the course of the debate, it elicited from the Minister a very sensible remark, and one that is of great importance to all legislators. He said that, in those matters, legislation should not ordinarily aim at going beyond the common standard of good employers. It should rather aim at forcing the bad employers to keep step with the good employers, thus avoiding the danger of out-pacing what has been found practicable and advisable.
I have yielded to a belated desire to intervene in the debate on this Bill for a few moments because I should like us all to realise that having taken this step forward on behalf of domestic workers we cannot free ourselves from the responsibility of trying to ensure that it will turn out for their good and not for their harm. When this Bill becomes law there will be certain statutory periods of rest, recuperation and leisure for domestic workers, as for those in other occupations, but this will be a doubtful boon if there is no safe shelter in which those workers can take their holidays or can recuperate, and this brings me to a matter on which I wish to get the Minister to help, if he can do so. Certain statistics which have recently been brought before Senators in this House—Senator Foran, Dr. Rowlette, and some others— reveal the remarkable fact that there is a very high incidence of sickness amongst domestic workers. When an explanation of this fact was sought, it was pointed out that the conditions of their employment had a good deal to do with it. Those conditions have been modified by recent changes in our people's social habits. Instead of the old roomy houses, with big basements, middle-class people are more and more coming to live in smallish dwellings, and a great many of those have no room for domestic helpers. In consequence, the custom of "living out," coming in to work by the day has grown largely in Dublin and other cities, and in Galway I understand. Many of the girls thus employed come from the country, and they are obliged to stay in lodgings, of which their modest wages limits the choice.
Some of the girls are obliged to spend their leisure outdoors, and that has taken a sad toll of their health, as well as other consequences that are deplored by social workers. It has been pointed out by some social workers, who have had great experience in these matters, for instance, Miss Helena Moloney and Miss Elizabeth O'Connor and others, that a solution of this important problem might be found by the provision of a hostel for domestic workers, a home-like place where they could receive training that would enable them to hold on to their jobs and, at the same time, raise their status considerably by making them competent. In these places mistresses and housewives might also find a solution of the difficulty they experience, as an arrangement might be made by which they could get at these hostels highly trained domestic helpers, by the day or by the half-day. These hostels would also provide a solution of the problem we have set when we make it compulsory for these girls to get holidays. Before the debate closes I should like if the Minister said something on this question to help a section of workers who are vitally interested. I know that this is not directly concerned with the Bill but, having gone from one Minister to another, and as it appears to be nobody's business, if we could get the Minister for Industry and Commerce interested in this aspect of the question, I think a very considerable advance would be made.
I should like briefly to reinforce the general principles of Senator Baxter's remarks. I feel that the Minister, in his attempt to give us a balanced economy, has given us an unbalanced economy. He is beginning at the wrong end. From the very laudable sentiments of the International Labour Office at Geneva, where this originated, he is giving us conditions, irrespective of the power of the country to carry them. I think a very good line in that respect was the attitude taken up by the Minister for Agriculture when he stated recently that there was no use in having post mortems. I agree with that. We must put agriculture in the position of having increased production, reduced costs and improved rural conditions. The Minister, no doubt with the best intention, wants to impose his economy on the country but urban conditions and rural conditions cannot be separated. All the increased burdens that his policy involves—this Bill in itself may not be very great—with increased labour charges and limited hours— make more difficult the recovery that the Minister for Agriculture rightly said must be brought about in agriculture, if the country is to get into an economic condition. For that reason I should like to endorse the general principles of Senator Baxter's remarks. There is a legal point about which I may be unduly apprehensive, but I fear that a lot of litigation may arise out of the definition of “market gardening,”“poultry farming” and other things connected with the land. As they are not mentioned one would not know under what legal category they fall. I am afraid there will be a lot of litigation. Perhaps I may be wrong. I hope so.
I have always supported the principle of annual holidays, and though I think there is something in what was said that applied to other Bills, I do not think that applies to any great extent to this Bill. If what Senator Mrs. Concannon said was true, I would not confine it to domestic workers. Incidentally, I think the Senator was wrong in stating that there are compulsory holidays for domestic workers provided in this Bill. I think they are the one class of workers that can be paid in lieu of holidays. Unless there is co-operative provision, either through the churches or other bodies, about the provision of cheap and satisfactory holidays, you will only have added to the general cost of the community, without any substantial benefit to those concerned. While I support the Bill, I think the Minister has gone too far with regard to the provisions in Section 16, as to the right of inspection of private dwelling-houses. I put down an amendment on the Committee Stage and withdrew it, as I understood the Minister hoped to introduce a somewhat modified one. He did not do so, and it was too late then for me to make any alternative suggestion. I want it to be registered, even now, that one person held the view that it is unnecessary, in order to have this Bill effective, to have a provision like that in Section 16, giving the right to inspect and to interview a person employed there. The Bill provides that a person nominated by the Minister can, when he thinks fit, simply say that he received information, and may enter any premises where he thinks workers are employed. That means that he can go into any room in a private dwelling-house if he has authority to do so. I think that will not be used on normal occasions, but it is a very considerable power. While we have not got to the stage in this country—perhaps, we did in the past— when that power could be abused, I think it is an unnecessary provision, and I am disappointed that the Minister did not see his way to modify it. I remind the House that any person who obstructs or impedes an inspector is liable to penalties. Once an inspector has been given authorisation by the Minister, or by the official appointed by him, he can go into any place, which includes any part of any private dwelling-house, in which he thinks a person is employed. That is far too much power, and I am sorry the Minister did not see his way to meet me. It is too late now but, as the point may arise again, I should like to be taken as protesting against that part of the Bill. Otherwise, I support the general principles of the Bill.
I find it very difficult to follow Senator Baxter's line of thought. He said that this Bill will not keep people on the land or will not put them into employment. There is no possible answer to that assertion except that the Bill is not intended to do either. He could have said that it will not guarantee fine weather every day and regulate the rainfall every night. It will not do that either. It it not intended to. We did not introduce this Bill to keep people on the land or put them into employment. It was introduced for the purpose of regulating the conditions applying to certain types of employment and ensuring that persons following those employments, whether in the towns or in rural areas, would be given certain rights to an annual holiday every year. That is all we set out to do. I say it is sheer nonsense to submit that this Bill would have the effect of driving people off the land. I would like Senator Baxter to point to the particular section which is going to operate in that way. This subject of the drift from the land, the movement of population from rural areas into towns has now, as always, aroused a considerable amount of public interest and has got a fair amount of publicity. I say that there is probably no subject upon which more nonsense is spoken by otherwise intelligent people since the economic war ended. In a country of this kind there must always be a movement of population from rural areas into the towns. It is inevitable. A farmer with 20 or 30 acres of land with a family of three or four sons can only provide on the land for one of them. The others must go somewhere else to get an opportunity of making a livelihood. In any country in the world where there is a 50 per cent. agricultural population there is a movement of population from the rural areas into the urban areas. That is inevitable and natural. It would be unnatural and unhealthy to stop it.
Senator Baxter spoke here about the decline in the number of people employed by agriculture. The number of people employed by agriculture is not an index of agricultural prosperity. It is sometimes quite the contrary. In the worst years of our agricultural experience in the past decade, and 1933 was probably that year, the year in which the economic war had its major effects, and before the measures taken to remedy its effects had come into operation, there was a considerable increase in the number of persons officially returned as employed on agriculture. There was no indication of agricultural prosperity.
There is a big decrease since.
There is no decrease since.
Yes, Sir.
The first thing that Senators who want to use statistics must learn is the elementary principle that two figures do not indicate a trend.
Take 1934 and 1937.
I think it would be advisable to curtail the supply of statistics to Senators. Obviously they do not know how to use them. They let these figures go to their heads. Senator Baxter here to-day said the acreage under tillage in 1938 was less than in 1937. What does it prove?
That there were fewer acres tilled.
Perhaps it was due to the climatic conditions of 1938.
And that your tillage policy was not succeeding.
Nothing of the kind. It merely stated the facts, facts which may be attributable to a variety of causes. If the same conditions continued for a number of years——
But they have been.
They have not been. But if those conditions continued over a number of years the Senator might be justified in risking a conclusion, but, of course, he is quite positive that he is right. I say here, and I challenge contradiction from anybody, that the movement of population from rural areas into towns or even the movement of population from rural areas out of the country is not entirely or mainly attributable to economic causes.
Hear, hear!
Senator Hayes agrees with that.
The Minister used to have a remedy for it, Sir.
It is one thing saying "entirely attributable" and another thing saying it is "not at all attributable."
Senator Baxter says it is entirely attributable to economic causes. If Senator Fitzgerald will take on the job it will save me some time.
What did Senator Baxter say?
The Senator said "entirely and absolutely."
He did not.
He said much more. He said that by improving conditions in the towns we are going to drive people off the land because the Senator thinks that obviously economic conditions will be more attractive in the towns than on the land. I dispute that.
You would be a bad farmer.
I invite the Senator to study any set of unemployment statistics. A good one-quarter of the registered unemployed in this country are in Dublin. Does Senator Baxter say that these people are better off than the people employed on the land? What prospect has the average agricultural worker or farmer's son who comes to Dublin except the prospect of being unemployed in Dublin? That is his prospect, and if there is movement of population into Dublin it is not due to better economic conditions in Dublin. Quite the reverse.
It is due to conditions being so bad on the land.
It is due to a variety of causes. I am not saying economic causes do not count. I am saying that if we can improve economic conditions on the land we must do it. Senator Baxter says it is quite hopeless so long as we are passing Bills of this kind. What on earth has this Bill to do with economic conditions? In what way does this Bill propose to improve agricultural conditions? I would like Senator Baxter to go away for half an hour and think and, having thought, try to develop that line.
He has thought more about it than the Minister.
It is quite impossible to associate the two things. Senator Baxter complained that we were drawing a line between people living in urban areas and people living in rural areas, and he said that after we spent several days here debating the amendments. I and I alone was resisting Senator Baxter's attempts to draw a line between the legislative conditions that were to apply. I resisted here every amendment that was proposed to effect a distinction between rural and urban workers.
Is not that in the Bill?
And the Senator who proposed those amendments was Senator Baxter.
Keep to the Bill.
I say here that in legislation of this kind we should make no distinction whatever between workers employed in rural areas and workers employed in urban areas.
But you have.
Not merely have I not done so, but I have resisted Senator Baxter's attempts to do it.
Have you not excluded certain classes from the operations of this Bill?
We have excluded certain types of employment.
You have drawn a line.
I would ask Senator Baxter how much he tilled last year and how much he tilled this year.
That is quite irrelevant. I would ask the Senator not to interrupt.
We have based this legislation and all legislation of the same kind on forms of work, not the parts of the country in which it was done, and we propose to continue along that line. We can have a discussion here at any time the Senators desire upon the measures that might be taken to make life in rural areas more attractive and to arrest, to the extent we want to arrest the movement of population from rural areas. This is hardly an appropriate occasion for such discussion, but I do say to Senator Baxter and anyone else that these measures designed to effect legislative changes in the conditions of employment of certain classes of workers have no bearing upon that subject whatever and if he starts off thinking upon it on that assumption he is going to arrive at wrong conclusions. He would probably arrive at wrong conclusions in any event, but he is bound to do so if he starts along that line.
I was astonished that Senator Sir John Keane, who usually shows some inclination to think in a logical way, should have thought fit to support Senator Baxter in his very unsound principles. Senator Sir John Keane spoke about the additional burden which measures of this kind might put on agriculture and he, of course, begs the question by legislating for annual holidays or improving the conditions which the industrial worker can get are we increasing industrial efficiency or the reverse? I assert on the experience of every major industrialist in the world that by measures of this kind you increase industrial efficiency rather than the reverse. I invite Senator Sir John Keane to study the reports upon the subject published by very large employers of labour who carried out various experiments in the curtailing of hours of work and provision of holidays. He will find that every one of them state they got a much better return in labour when they provided these amenities and facilities than before they attempted it. If our experience is going to be the same as every other people in the world the enactment of these measures is going to increase industrial efficiency and consequently lighten the burden on agriculture and not increase it.
I am afraid I cannot deal with the points raised by Senator Mrs. Concannon. They are outside the scope of this Bill and some of them are, I think, likely to be mainly the concern of the Department of Local Government and Public Health, but I would be prepared to discuss them with her at any time.
One other point was raised by Senator Douglas, who objected to the powers of inspection which were given under Section 16 of the Bill. He misquoted. He said that as the Bill stood any person appointed by the Minister could, if he thought fit, walk into any room in any house for the purpose of carrying out an inspection. In the case of a private dwelling-house we curtailed the powers of the inspector to a very drastic extent. We provided that an inspector cannot exercise his powers in relation to a private dwelling-house unless and until he has got from the Minister a certificate to the effect that that Minister has good reason to believe that an offence against the Act has been committed.
I pointed out that it was from the Minister or an officer appointed by him and that is exactly what is stated. It is not the Minister.
For that purpose appointed by the Minister—for the purpose of giving such a certificate. I decided against any change in these provisions in the Bill, because I felt that if we were to change them the powers of inspection which it is necessary to have would be largely ineffective. Some power there must be there if we are going to prevent evasion of the measure. The powers given to inspectors under this Bill are much less drastic than those given to inspectors under the National Health Insurance Acts. The average private employer and occupier of a private dwelling-house has had experience of the operation of the National Health Insurance Acts for something like 20 years, and I do not think that anybody can complain that the existence of these powers has proved onerous or enabled inspectors to act in a manner which might reasonably be resented by any householder. I do not think that in the ordinary course the Department will undertake the enforcement of the provisions of this measure in relation to domestic servants except on complaint received or upon some evidence being forthcoming that the provisions are not being observed. If such complaint is forthcoming, or if there is evidence that in an individual case the terms of the Act are being evaded, I think the Department must have the powers of inspection so that it can fulfil its obligation and duty of enforcing the measure.
Is it open to any other Senator to speak after the Minister?
No.
I thought so. I thought he was only making the speech thinking he would get away with it because nobody could speak after him.
It is open to the Senator to put down a motion any time, and I am prepared to make a field day of it.
Question put and agreed to.