Wages of Agricultural Workers—Motion.

Mr. Foran

I move the following motion, which stands in the names of Senators Campbell, Cummins, Tunney, and myself:—

That Seanad Eireann is of opinion, complementary to the announcement of increased minimum prices for certain agricultural products, it is essential to increase substantially wages payable to agricultural workers and to effect reasonable amelioration of their conditions of employment, and requests that the necessary steps to these ends be taken immediately.

It is a pity that this motion is coming on at such a late hour, because I regard it as one of the utmost importance. We have been discussing the price of wheat. As far as the farmer is represented in this House, it is agreed that the price arranged for wheat is a fair price. It is important to note that, but I do not think anyone will admit that the rate of wages paid to agricultural labourers is a fair one. I do not think anybody professing Christianity could stand over the wages that are being paid to our agricultural labourers. Speaking on the motion dealing with the price of wheat, we on these benches advocated an increase in order that those engaged in agriculture should have a reasonable standard of living. We had in mind all the people engaged in agriculture. The farmer, apparently, is pretty well satisfied with the price arranged for the wheat crop. We are speaking on behalf of the neglected men in agriculture. We have about 100,000 farm labourers. They are split into three groups for the purpose of arranging what is termed a wage by the Agricultural Wages Board, a body set up by the Government. In group I, the rate arranged is 30/- a week, and in group II, it is 31/6 a week. In the vicinity of big cities and large centres of population the rate is 36/- a week. Nobody will try to defend a wage of that standard. I am sure nobody in this House could possibly maintain himself on that much money, not to talk of having to rear and educate a family. It could not be done on such a miserable wage with anything approaching comfort.

In view of the national emergency we are trying to induce the farmers to produce more crops, particularly wheat; but satisfying the farmers is not sufficient. We must have a contented body of agricultural labourers if we are to get the best possible results from our campaign to grow more wheat. Amongst the 100,000 agricultural labourers are the men who will be expected to man the defences in the event of invasion. This is how we treat them—giving them wages such as I have alluded to.

There are certain social evils from which this country has been, and is, suffering. I will instance the overcrowding of the cities and, latterly, the great flood of emigration, the exodus of the people who ought to be tilling the land and producing food for the nation. We do not suggest it is possible to remedy all those evils at the present time, but it is possible to give these people covered by the motion a wage that will enable them to attain a reasonable standard of living. Immediately across the water there is a minimum wage of £3 a week being paid to workers, and a person does not have to be over 20 years of age to get that amount.

The Minister for Agriculture, in his wisdom—and I agree with him up to a point—is refusing to give permits to our agricultural labourers to go across there and get the benefit of that higher rate of wages. He is preventing people going where there is a reasonable standard of wages provided for their labour—and that is all they have, their labour. Other people are prepared to pay a fair price for it. Are we going to keep these people at home and compel them to exist on the miserable standards which we have set out for them? The farmers are fairly well satisfied, but are these men going to be satisfied? Are these men going to make the effort we expect from them in order to produce the nation's food if we are indifferent to the standard of comfort at which they ought to live?

I do not anticipate opposition from any part of the House in connection with this motion. I am sure every Senator appreciates the situation just as much as I do. These men are absolutely unorganised. They have no one to plead their case and, consequently, we have to do what is obviously our duty to these downtrodden people, irrespective of whether they are Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or Labour. They are citizens of this country and they are prepared to give the labour that we require so badly. Therefore, it is our simple duty to pay them a wage on which they can maintain themselves and their families in a reasonable standard of comfort.

I do not think I need occupy the time of the House very much longer, because I do not see any reason why this motion should be opposed by any section. In order to save time, I should like to refer to the amendment in the name of Senator Counihan. I know he has given the matter a good deal of consideration and, when forming the amendment, has called into counsel a number of wise heads. He mentions in his amendment a committee of experts. I suggest that what he wants is a committee of magicians, because their job would be to increase the wages of the labourers without any loss to the farmers. We have already had experts; we saw them performing on various committees and we know their ability to perform. If we got together a committee of experts to deal with this simple matter, I believe the harvest for 1943 would be in before they would have their minds made up.

Mr. Counihan

The increased price will not come into operation until nearly 1943.

Mr. Foran

You will be getting the increase on this year's crop; it will come into operation next October or November. I submit that this amendment is simply put down for the purpose of evading the issue as to whether the farm labourers are to get any increase in wages and in order to prevent some people giving a direct vote on the motion. I give the people who put down the second amendment the credit of having good intentions regarding family allowances. The farmers have not been paying anything approaching a reasonable wage.

Professor Johnston

That is not an amendment to this motion.

Cathaoirleach

Senator Baxter's is the second amendment.

Mr. Foran

I am delighted by what Senator Johnston has told me, because we can agree when that motion comes along. I was informed that that proposal was related to my motion.

Cathaoirleach

There is a motion on the subject of family allowances, but it has no connection with this motion.

Mr. Foran

I sincerely hope that my good example in not occupying the time of the House too long will be followed by other speakers and that we will have an opportunity of voting and deciding on this matter before many hours have elapsed. I do not think there will be much opposition to the motion.

Mr. Campbell

I formally second the motion.

Mr. Counihan

I move the amendment standing in my name:—

To delete all words from the word "essential" to the word "employment", inclusive, and substitute therefor the following words: "desirable that a small expert committee be appointed to consider and report as to what steps, if any, can be taken to increase wages payable to agricultural workers and to improve their conditions of employment, without placing an unbearable burden on the farmers"; and to delete the words "to these ends".

The motion would then read:

That Seanad Eireann is of opinion, complementary to the announcement of increased minimum prices for certain agricultural products, it is desirable that a small expert committee be appointed to consider and report as to what steps, if any, can be taken to increase wages payable to agricultural workers and to improve their conditions of employment, without placing an unbearable burden on the farmers, and requests that the necessary steps be taken immediately.

With most of what Senator Foran said as regards the wages of agricultural workers I agree. I agree that it is very desirable to increase their wages, but how it can be done is a matter, in my opinion, for an expert committee to inquire into the whole conditions of the agricultural industry and see what improvement could be made to increase the agricultural workers' as well as the farmers' incomes. It has been proved that many farmers have less for their work and for their families' labour than the present minimum wage which they pay to their agricultural workers. A lot has been said about the increased prices which the Government very grudgingly guaranteed for the 1942 wheat and beet crops. I do not know very much about the growing of beet, but I am sure I can prove to the House that 50/- a barrel for wheat is not a very remunerative price under present conditions and is not a sufficient price to leave a margin to pay increased wages. The 50/- a barrel is not the minimum price; it is the maximum price for millable wheat, weighing 59 lbs. to the bushel. The price goes down after that to 46/-, and a good deal of the wheat grown this year may not be millable at all and we have to take that risk into account.

I can definitely say from my own experience, and I have some experience of the growing of wheat, that when the guaranteed price for wheat was 30/- a barrel it was a more remunerative price than 50/- is this year. When the price was 30/- my land produced ten barrels to the statute acre, which gave a return of £15. Last year the produce was less than seven barrels, and at 40/- the return was only £14. I cannot hope for more than six barrels to the acre this year, which, at the increased price of 50/-, will give a return of £15, and, as the overhead charges and harvesting expenses have increased very much since then, it means that that return, at the price of 50/- a barrel, is not quite as good as when the price was 30/-.

If you examine the returns which the farmer has for his oats, barley, potatoes and root crops, you will also find that he is not in a position to pay increased wages. Oats, barley and root crops are mainly grown for stall-feeding cattle, and stall-feeding this season would not leave any profit. Stall-feeding never paid unless there was a substantial rise in the price of beef between the time the cattle were put in and the time they were sold. That did not happen this year. The controlled price of beef was 11d. a lb. on the 1st December, and that had grown to be the controlled price until next April, then it had to go on to June, to 12d. a lb., while last year, in June, we were getting 12½d. for it. So where are the prospects of paying an increased wage to agricultural workers? I would also like to remind the House in connection with this matter that our livestock trade was held up for nine months of this year through foot and mouth disease, with disastrous results to the farmers, and very many of them have been left in a very bad financial position.

If this amendment of mine is accepted, I can assure the Seanad that there is no section of the community more anxious to improve the conditions of the agricultural workers than the farmers themselves, and I am sure that whatever recommendations this committee would propose would be faithfully carried out by the farmers to improve the conditions of their agricultural workers, but what the farmer has not got for himself or his family he cannot give to his agricultural workers, and he cannot afford to give more than the present rate to his workers. Can I discuss the amendment in the name of Senator Baxter, Sir?

Cathaoirleach

Yes.

Mr. Counihan

Well, the only thing I have to say with regard to Senator Baxter's amendment is that if a few experts are put in on that committee, which is proposed to be set up, it would be a good thing, but in an organisation of accountants, such as his amendment proposes, I have not very much confidence. If you want to take costings into account you will have to consider all the different branches of agriculture, you will have to consider the whole revenue which the farmer derives from his undertakings, and you will have to consider what profit or loss he will have to meet if he is in a position to pay an increased rate to his agricultural workers. I agree with Senator Foran that we should not delay the House, and I think neither of us delays the House by making very long speeches. I have put the case fairly and squarely, that there is no opposition to improving the lot of the agricultural workers. There are no people more anxious than the farmers are to do it, but as regards the way to do it, I think it should be left in the hands of an expert committee of practical farmers, who would know something about the job which they were tackling, and not a costings organisation.

Dr. Doyle

I second Senator Counihan's amendment, and I am seconding it, not for the purpose of shelving the motion. There is one thing that Senators Foran and Counihan have in common, and it is that they are agreed that there should be an increase in the wages of agricultural labourers, and I think that the whole thing is to find out what is the best way of doing it. I cannot agree with Senator Foran's idea that it should be complementary on the announcement of an increased minimum price for, say, wheat. I regard the increased price of wheat this year as being merely an offset to avoid a loss. It is not that the farmer will get any more money, say, next October for the same acreage of wheat. It is simply to avoid a loss.

The whole trend of legislation for a number of years has been against the agricultural labourer. For instance, for about three months of the year the agricultural labourer is left without unemployment assistance. In the summer time he is supposed to be able to find work or go fish or do something like that. He is cut off from all sources of benefit for a certain portion of the year. Then the widows and orphans of an agricultural labourer get less money than those of an urban worker. The agricultural worker is also excluded from the scheme of food vouchers. So that the whole trend of legislation has been against the agricultural labourer and rather in favour of the urban or town worker. Unless you make the wages of the agricultural labourer at least equal to the wages of the urban worker the flight from the land will continue. I know young boys of 18 years of age in what I call a secondary industry who are earning more money than their fathers who have been working on the land all their lives. If that secondary industry were to close down to-morrow those boys would emigrate; they would never go back to the land again. If you want to keep such people on the land you must at least make their wages equal to the wages of the workers in the towns or cities.

Because the price of wheat has been increased by 10/- a barrel that does not mean, as I said, that the farmer will make more money. Mr. Twomey, who has had 40 years' experience of the farming industry, gave it as his considered evidence at the Banking Commission that in the best of times the farmer could not earn 5 per cent. on his capital. This year a subsidy of £2,000,000 was given to the milling industry whose declared dividend was over 6 per cent. Therefore, if the price of wheat is increased, it does not follow that that should mean an increase in the price of bread or sugar or any of those things.

Another thing is that the price of food and clothing has gone up considerably, especially the price of clothing. I was told yesterday that a workingman's shirt, which used to cost 5/-, now costs 14/6; that a pair of boots, which used to cost 21/-, now costs 35/-. All these things are in favour of an increase of wages, but I cannot see that the cost of that should be put on the farmer, because he cannot bear it and some other method must be found. Probably the system of family allowances would be a good idea.

When I read in the papers of a supplementary budget in the United States of America for £6,000,000,000 and in about a week another one for £5,000,000,000 or £6,000,000,000, I often wonder how all this money can be provided in time of war. In times of peace we do not see anything like that happening. In England, another country which is at war, they are spending, I think, £16,000,000 per day. In times of peace they had some millions unemployed but they did not spend one-tenth of that sum per day then. So that in case of an emergency it seems to me the countries can find money. Our country is in a declared state of emergency now. Why cannot this State, therefore, find the money and put it into the most essential industry that it has, namely, agriculture? I think the Minister should adopt a very bold forward policy. He should approach the Minister for Finance, the man who holds the purse, and pour money into agriculture and make it prosperous. The secondary industries, or some of them anyway, can at least carry on, and in that way I believe the country would be more prosperous.

Mr. Baxter

The motion, if the House accepts my amendment, would read:—

That Seanad Eireann is of opinion, complementary to the announcement of increased minimum prices for certain agricultural products, it is essential to increase substantially wages payable to agricultural workers provided it has been determined by a technical agricultural costings organisation that such agricultural prices can bear increased costs.

You cannot pay money unless you have got the money. You cannot pay it out of agriculture, you cannot pay it out of industry, unless the earnings provide you with the cash. I am all with the people who argue that the agricultural labourer ought to be better paid. I think everybody on the land ought to be better paid, much better paid than they are. I never subscribed to the point of view, and I think it is fatal to our whole future as a nation, that the agricultural worker must be the most lowly paid citizen in the State. It is not that the agricultural worker is not an industrious man. Neither is he a stupid nor unintelligent man. On the contrary, our agricultural workers are probably the most intelligent workers in our community. They have to be, because the industry in its way is the most technical and diversified industry we have in the country. In other industries some men know something about one side of the industry and others know something about another side. But the good agricultural labourer has to know everything about every side of the agricultural industry. You cannot have such workers unless they are treated like workers elsewhere and it is, I think, a reflection on us that from the beginning of this State the agricultural worker was not put in a position equal in status to workers in other branches of industry both in town and in country.

I think it must be conceded that the agricultural worker was not well paid because the farmer who employed him was not himself well paid. Some years ago the Agricultural Wages Act was put through the Oireachtas. I sometimes wonder how it was that that Act went through without any serious challenge. We set up an Agricultural Wages Board and it has been operating now for three or four years. I think we might say it has been operating absolutely on a rule-of-thumb basis. It has been arbitrarily deciding what agricultural workers' wages are to be without any sort of technical examination of the agricultural position to determine the capacity of the industry to pay the wages.

We started first with a wage of 24/- weekly. Later the amount was raised to 27/-, and it is now 30/- weekly. It has to be conceded that the wages were determined at the time when conditions in the agricultural industry here were extremely bad. We have not here what they have in other countries, any sort of technical organisation for determining costs in agriculture. In fact, we are one of the most backward countries in the world in that respect. We know that for years the Oxford Research Institute on Agricultural Economics has studied costings in every branch of agriculture in England intimately and accurately. It is a matter of complaint that so few of the publications of this institute are available for examination here. I noticed recently that attached to the University of New South Wales a costings organisation has been established, headed by an economist, and with four or five other experts attached to the staff. Here we are in the position that while we have been declaiming against the conditions and the incapacity to bear increased burdens, it is true to say that we have been rarely able to advance figures to prove our contention. We know from our experience in the industry that after outgoings have been transferred to the pockets of other people, who make claims against us, there is practically nothing left for the owners, the farmers who have to meet all the obligations imposed on them in carrying on and managing the industry. No attempt has ever been made to arrive at what the costings in agriculture are. That situation should not be permitted to continue.

I noticed that in the Minister's speech in Cork recently, which was briefly reported, he referred to the fact that the Government method of price-fixing with regard to agricultural commodities was unsatisfactory, and that some other plan would have to be adopted. I do not know what he hinted at, but I am encouraged to think by his statement that he considers the present plan is unsatisfactory. We have crossed swords in this House and in the other House about the price of wheat, and the Minister when examining my statement indicated that I was not quite sure whether 50/- a barrel was a paying price or not. That is true. We have various figures of costings regarding the production of wheat. If the costings on some farms were put against the costings on other farms they would show a dead loss. It is the truth to say that as far as agriculture is concerned either for dairying, tillage farming, or stock raising, no costings are available to determine exactly what it means to the farmer to put these commodities on the market. The net result is that farmers are faced with motions like the present one and are not able to say that from personal experience they are not able to bear the burdens that increased agricultural wages would put upon them. If you ask farmers to produce figures they are not available. There was at one time a costings officer attached to the Department of Agriculture. Cost of production on various farms was collected. It was not a really scientific examination of the cost of production but an approximation. I think the work of that officer has been discontinued and, if so, it is unfortunate.

Regarding the future of agriculture it has come to this, that if the farmer and his family are to live on the land, and if agricultural workers are to be kept on the land, it must be made worth their while in terms of £ s. d. They are not flying from the land because they dislike the land, but but because they dislike the conditions that are imposed upon them. I have some figures showing the proportion of the national income of farmers and of people in towns. Professor Duncan calculated that the national income is £167,000,000 of which £106,000,000 goes to 1,000,000 people living in towns and cities, and £67,000,000 to 1,900,000 people living on the land. It is obvious that the reason why people in the country are flying to the towns is in order to get a bigger slice of the £106,000,000, and also because conditions there are easier and more attractive. That is why the people are leaving the land. We cannot afford to be soft-spoken any longer about that problem. We should face facts. It is deplorable that more has not been done with regard to determining costs in agriculture. The time is ripe to do it, because justice cannot be done to the industry until we know the cost of production, and create a situation when farmers will get something more than cost of production.

In the year following that survey things had improved, and we had emerged from the period of the economic war. In that year labourers' wages amounted to 27/- weekly, and the farmer's income in return for his labour would be 16/- per week.

I want any Senator to prove that it is within the power of the farmers to do more for their workers, having regard to the condition in which the agricultural industry is said to be. The income that farmers get for the work they do in agriculture will have to be a very big share of their total income. That is the important point. It is only when it comes to the balancing of the budget that one can appreciate how little there is left for them after the hard work that farmers put into agriculture. Apparently my presentation of the case presented by Professor Murphy is contested, but these figures have not been challenged in public. It would be a good thing if they could be publicly challenged. If there are people with trained minds who hold the opposite point of view, it would be helpful if the figures were challenged, because nothing is more injurious regarding our understanding of the whole situation with regard to agriculture than to permit any presentation of facts or alleged facts as to the real position, to go unchallenged, if there is a contrary case to be made. It is all to the good that such a case should be made. I am putting the facts as revealed by Professor Murphy's survey in Limerick and Cork. Senator O'Dwyer and Senator O'Callaghan know that area, and presumably know some of the farmers, and their incomes, and if they could tell us that conditions now are different I would be prepared to listen to them. I would like to hear the facts from people acquainted with them. From my experience I think the figures given in the survey are in accordance with facts.

The House may sit up to 9.30 p.m. by agreement.

Mr. Quirke

If the matter under discussion were of urgent importance, or of outstanding urgency, I would say that we should carry on until morning, but I do not think there is any great urgency about it, and it was more or less agreed that we should adjourn at 9 o'clock.

The Seanad adjourned at 9.5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 25th February.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 11 Feb 1942

Wages of Agricultural Workers—Motion.

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 Feb 1942