Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 25 Feb 1942

Vol. 26 No. 8

Wages of Agricultural Workers—Motion (Resumed).

Bhíos ag tagairt do rudaí a thuit amach le cúpla bliain no trí chun tuarastal lucht oibre d'árdú agus annsin gur éirigh leis na feirmeoirí luacha torthaí a chur suas. Fuair siad 30/- an bharraille ar chruithneacht an uair sin. Tá siad ag fáil 50/- anois. D'árduigheadh an luach ar bhiatas agus de thairbhe sin árdóchar an luach ar phlúr agus ar shiúcre, agus táthar ag iarraidh breis air sin. Cé íocfas an piobaire sa deireadh? An pobal bocht. Is sórt cluiche pócair atá san obair seo. Scairteann dream aca a chúig, scairteann dream eile a deic, an chéad dream eile cúig-déag agus mar sin, ach sé donas an scéil nach iad na daoine is aoirde scairteas a dhíolas an dochar, ach muinntear na hEireann uilig.

Is dóigh liom féin go bhféadfadh na feirmeoirí b'fhéidir beagán níos mó a thabhairt do na hoibrightheoirí fá láthair, gan árdú ar bith fháil ar a dtoradh, nó ón Stát. Tá siad ag fáil luach maith ar a lán rudaí, ar chruithneacht, ar bhiatas, ar lín, ar olainn, agus ar mhóin má tá portach aca; agus níl a gcostas ag dul suas dá réir, óir gheibh siad cuid mhaith dá mbiadh, agus go minic adhbhar teineadh, gan costas, ach a saothrú. Is minic adeir siad, agus is fíor é, go dtig gach adhbhar cothuithe ón talamh. Tig, agus tá seilbh an tailimh ag na feirmeoirí. Ach tá taobh eile ar an sgéal. Is le muinntear na hÉireann an talamh agus tá siad i muinighin an tailimh le n-a mbeatha a thártháil. Má fágtar gann i mbiadh no i dteine sinn, geallaim daoibh go mbeidh raic ann agus go mbeidh malairt seilbhe ar an talamh. Mura mbainfidh na feirmeoirí adhbhar cothuithe ón talamh don phobal, bainfear an talamh díobh agus cuirfear bail úr ar an talmhaíocht. Céad bliain ó shoin nó suas le céad bliain ó shoin bhí gorta mór ins an tír seo, gorta a mhairbh níos mó daoine ná marbhuigheadh ins an domhanchogadh seo go fóill, gorta a chuir gráin ar an saol mór go dtí go raibh morán náisiún mar na Stáit Aontuithe agus fiú an Turkey ag cur biadh go dtí an tír seo, biadh nár shroich na daoine go minic. Cuireadh an mileán fán ghorta sin ar Riaghaltas Shasana agus ar na tighearnaí talmhan agus bé an ceart an mileán a chur ortha mar níor ghlac siad tuairim ar bith faoi mhuintear na hÉireann. Ach má thagann gorta anois go hEirinn, cé air a gcuirfear an mileán? Is dóigh liom fhéin go gcuirfear é b'fhéidir ar dtús ar an Riaghaltas ach ina dhiaidh sin beidh an mileán ar na feirmeoiri nár bhain siad go leor biadha ná teas ná rudaí eile as an talamh.

Má tá ciall ag na feirmeoirí, agus creidim go bhfuil, ciall cheannuighthe, tuigfidh siad gurb é a ndualgas go leor bidh a bhaint as an talamh leis sinn a chothú agus má cuireann siad, an rud ba cheart dóibh a dhéanamh, acraí go leor den talamh fé curaíocht le biadh do sholáthar don phobal, beidh cuid mhaith congnamh ag teastáil uatha ó lucht tuarastail agus caithfidh siad tuarastal réasúnta a thabhairt dóidh. Tá slí amháin ann gur féidir cúitiú a thabhairt do lucht oibre fán tuaith gan morán d'ualach do chur ar an Riaghaltas nó ar na feirmeoirí sé sin, acra no dhó de thalamh do thabhairt mar chon-acra do gach teaghlach den lucht oibre le saothrú dhóibh féin ar chíos réasúnta, cuir i gcás, an méid a chosann sé do na feirmeoirí iad fhéin, cúpla punt an acra, an suim is mó de. Fá lathair ní féidir le lucht oibre sin a fháil gan cíos i bhfad róthrom a dhíol air. I gContae na Midhe agus i gContae Tír Chonaill tá fhios agam go bhfuil fir obire a dteastuíonn con-acra uatha go gcaithfidh siad £7 an acra a thabhairt mar chíos. Níl sin ceart. Níl na feirmeoirí fhéin ag tabhairt a leath-oiread sin ar an talamh. Bhéarfaidh sin cúitiú mór do lucht oibre. D'fhéadfadh fear oibre go mbeadh teaghlach aige biadh go leor a sholathar dóibh, cúpla acra prátaí, no cúpla acra cruithneachtan no eornan agus d'fhéadfadh sé biadh do sholáthair dóibh an chuid is mó den am. Rud eile, bhéarfadh sé baile comhnuidhe seasamhach dó agus ní bheadh an fonn céanna air teacht isteach ins na bailte móra no imtheacht go Sasana no Alban no America. Sin rud nach cosnóchadh aon rud, no fiú aon rud, don tír agus chuirfeadh sé leis an bhiadh agus leis an ollmhaitheas as an talamh.

Cuirim an moladh sin agus na tuairimi seo fá bhráid an Riaghaltais agus fá bhráid lucht oibre, cibé ar bith is fiú iad.

Ní fheadar an bhfuil tuilleadh moladh agam ach amháin tagairt do rud a chuala mé annseo i mBaile Átha Cliath Dé Domhaigh seo caithte ar an sráid. I gContae na Midhe tá Gaeltacht nua ann agus tá tuairim trí scór feirmeoiri ins an áit sin. Tá teaghlach i ngach áit aca san agus iad ag fás agus tá go leor lucht oibre aca fhéin agus níos mó ná go leor, ach má theastúionn uatha tuilleadh tailimh a fháil le saothrú caithfidh siad suas le £7 sa bhliain an t-acra a thabhairt air sin. Téigheann siad amach agus chíonn siad mór-thimpall ortha na mílte acra ina luighe bán. An talamh sin níl aon mhaith ann d'aoinne ach don fheirmeoir ar leis é. Ní dhíolann sé tuarastal. Níl air ach cúram a thabhairt do na buláin agus má gheibheann sé profit cuireann sé ina phóca é. Níl aon tairbhe don tír ann. Deirtear go bhfuil 3,000,000 acra d'ithir na hEireann atá intreabhtha agus nach treabhtar. Tá sé ina luighe bán faoi fhéir agus faoi na buláin agus na caoirigh agus na ba. Tá fhios againn go léir nach bhfuil morán maith annsin don tír. Tá an seachtú cuid den tír atá intreabhtha faoi curraíocht. Tá beagnach a leath den tír ina luighe bán agus tá 7,000,000 eile nach bhfuil intreabhtha ach gur féidir úsáid a bhaint as ag baint mona, ag cur crainn agus rudai mar sin agus níl faic á dhéanamh leis. Is mór an náire é.

Tá sé i n-am dúinn smaointiú ar an rud is fearr a dhéanamh don tír seo agus é dhéanamh, agus cibé ar bith duine a gcuirfidh sé as dó é a chur a leath-taobh agus smaointiú ar mhaitheas an phobail go léir.

Seo é an rud a chuala mé Dé Domhnaigh. Tá tuairim leath na feirmeoirí ins an Gaedhealtacht go bhfuil aimsir le sparáil ag na teaghlaigh agus go bhfuil siad ag cloisint bolscaireacht mór go bhfuil cruithneacht ag teastáil uainn sa tír. Bhí tuairim aca go nglacfadh siad ocht n-acra gach teaghlach agus go gcuirfidís cruithneach annsin, sé sin os cionn 400 acra a bheadh fé chruithneacht agus, abair,. ceithre míle barraille cruithneachtan. Bheadh siad sásta sin a ghlacadh ón talamh bán a bhí ina luighe annsin thart timpall ortha, ach é fháil ar chíos réasúnta, agus ní bhfuighidís é. Beidh an tír an méid sin goirid de chruithneachtain i mbliana mar gheall air sin. Tá iongantas orm fhéin. Ní thuigim cén fáth nár glacadh seilbh ar chuid den talamh bán sin agus é thabhairt do lucht oibre a bhí fonnmhar é oibriú agus cruithneacht do chur ann.

Tá rud amháin eile a chuala mé annseo indiu. Chualamar ologón ó na feirmeoirí i dtaobh na droch-aimsire a bhí aca fé lathair. Scéal o professors é agus ní chreidim é. Ní chreidim Professor Murphy no professor ar bith eile nuair deir sé go bhfuil droch-aimsear ag na feirmeoirí fé lathair. Má tá, is ortha féin atá an locht. Tá ceist cile ann. Cén luach atá ar an talamh? Má theastuíonn feirm uaim-se cé mhéid a chaitheas mé thabhairt air? Luaidh mé cheanna féin an cíos ar fiú an talamh i gContae na Midhe—£7 an acra. Is mór an méid sin agus níos mó ná a leath de sin gheibh an feirmeoir in aisce é. Níl sé ag díol £2 an acra agus £4 no £5 fágtha aige go dtig leis cur ina phóca. Léigh mé ins an bpáipéar tá tamall ó shoin fá luacha roinnt feirme a díoladh le goirid agus siad na luachanna a fuair siad ortha, ó £30 go dtí £60 an t-acra. Anois, más féidir nach bhfuighidh feirmeoir ach £50 ins an bhliain as a saothar, cad chuige nach ndíolfadh sé an fheirm sin ar, abair, £5 an t-acra? Measaim go dtig le na feoirmeoirí níos mó tuarastal a thabhairt dá lucht oibre agus go mba cheart dóibh an cheist sin do scrúdú go cúramach.

I think a good many of the speeches that have been made are more or less superfluous at the moment, particularly when I draw the attention of the Seanad to the fact that the Agricultural Wages Board is there. The Agricultural Wages Act was passed in 1936 and I think it is true to say that there was practically no opposition at any stage of that Bill in either House of the Oireachtas, so that it can be taken that the different Parties at that time were as favourable to the Bill being passed as were those who introduced it. In that Act there was machinery for the fixation of a minimum wage.

It is possible that there are certain Senators who do not exactly remember what way that Act operates and it may be no harm to mention that under the Act there are regional committees set up. On each regional committee there is at least one representative of the farmers and one representative of the agricultural labourers from each county; in some of the bigger counties there is more than one representing each interest. There are five regional committees in the country and they are arranged more or less on a geographical basis for the convenience of meeting, where there is a convenient centre for meeting. In addition, there was an Agricultural Wages Board, a Central Board set up. On that board there are four representatives of the farmers, and four representatives of the agricultural labourers. There are three neutral members nominated by the Minister for Agriculture and a chairman, also nominated by the Minister. That is how this machinery is planned.

When the chairman is informed there is a request from either side, from the labourers or the farmers, that there should be a review of the wages, he calls meetings of the regional committees. He goes to each committee in turn and gets the views of the farmers' representatives and the labour representatives and, having visited all the committees, he calls a meeting of the board, and puts before the board what he has gathered from the various committees. If they have passed a resolution asking for a higher wage or for some change in the conditions of employment, he puts these matters before the board and gives them an account of the voting at the committee meeting. The board then discusses the business. The chairman tries to get the board to agree. He is the chairman of a conciliation board and it is his business to get agreement, if he can. If he fails to get agreement, then he is bound to give an award himself, so that he acts in a judicial capacity if he fails to get agreement from the board as a whole. If the four representatives of the farmers and the four representatives of labour and the three neutral members agree on any particular thing, then the chairman must abide by that decision.

The position at the moment is that the committees have met. The chairman has been around the committees during the last four or five weeks—I learned this from the chairman. I did not ask him what the decision of the committees was, because it is not my business to find that out. I know that he has attended the meetings of five committees. He concluded those meetings some day last week and his next business is to call a meeting of the board. He is calling that meeting and it will meet some time early in March.

I think, under the circumstances, that if the Seanad were to come to a decision on this motion it would interfere with the machinery already set up by the Oireachtas. In fact, it would be very much like passing a resolution giving the Seanad's opinion of what the decision of even the High Court might be in a particular case. I think it is not advisable that the Seanad should come to a decision on this particular motion or on any of the amendments. Senators know that this board fixes a minimum wage. They have no business to interfere with any farmer who pays more than the minimum wage and, so far as any law or order is concerned at the present time, any farmer can pay as much as he likes to his labourer. In fact, as we know, a number of farmers are paying more than the minimum wage.

I do not intend to enter into the merits of the case. It would not be right for me to do so at the moment. If there had been a different type of motion put before the Seanad, I might like to express my opinion on it, just as well as anybody else here; but I think as regards this particular motion it would be wrong that I should express any opinion whatever on the merits. It is very easy for any of us to say that we think the agricultural labourers should get more. It may require a certain amount of moral courage, even on the part of a Senator here, if this goes to a division, to say that he will vote against the motion brought in by Senator Foran, because it might be made to appear that he is voting against an increase of agricultural wages. I think what he really would be voting for is this, that the machinery already set up should be allowed to function and that the Seanad should not interfere by expressing any opinion at this moment.

If the Seanad should carry this motion, what effect will it have? In my opinion it will have no effect whatever. Who is going to interfere? The mover of the motion does not say. Surely, the Government are not going to interfere? The Government got the Dáil and Seanad to set up machinery to establish a minimum wage.

Was there any Seanad at all at that time?

Was there not?

I do not think so.

Perhaps I made a mistake there and I should have stuck to the Dáil.

Who fixes the price of wheat?

The Government fixed the price of wheat, but the Government did not ask—although they may ask soon—the Dáil or the Seanad to put up machinery for the fixing of the price of wheat. I think they would be wrong in fixing the price after they asked the Dáil and Seanad to set up the machinery. The Dáil and Seanad having asked the Government to set up machinery for dealing with agricultural wages, I think it would be wrong now, at the request of the Seanad, to ignore the Agricultural Wages Board. Therefore, I say that if this motion is carried it may be all right for Senators who vote for it, because they can go to the country and tell the agricultural labourers that they are their friends, but they must realise at the same time that they are not achieving anything for the agricultural labourers. They are expressing their opinions—we can all do that—about the agricultural labourers getting more. I am sure there is no Senator who would object to the agricultural labourers getting more—but that is all it amounts to, a record of those who favour an increase of wages for the agricultural labourers, but without saying anything of how it is to be done or anything else. Those who vote against the motion, on the other hand, as I say, will be, in my opinion, in a more logical position, because they will at least vote that the machinery is there, that as long as it is there it should be allowed to operate, and that there should not be any what I might call sentimental or humanitarian considerations brought in here to interfere with that machinery.

Now, I think that the Agricultural Wages Board should be allowed to proceed with their business. I do not know what they may do. I have not the slightest idea of what they may do, but if, when they meet in two or three weeks' time, they say, for instance, that in their opinion an increase of wages cannot be given, and if there are Senators here who dislike intensely that decision, then I think that what these Senators should do is to put down a motion to repeal the Agricultural Wages Act. That is the only thing that could be done in the present circumstances because nobody can interfere as long as that Act is there.

On a point of order, is not the Minister prejudging the situation that he outlined a moment ago?

Leas-Chathaoirleach

That is not a point of order.

Is the meeting of the board, to which the Minister has referred, a statutory meeting or is it one that is specially called?

It is a meeting specially called to consider the matter of wages. I cannot say definitely at the moment —I have not the Act with me—what moves the chairman to call the committees, but I know that he has called them.

Might I suggest that it is very desirable that a debate on the motion with regard to family allowances should take place before the Agricultural Wages Board take their decision on the matter to which the Minister refers?

That is another point, but at any rate the committees have met and the board must now meet. I was not able to get a definite date for the meeting from the chairman, but he said that the board, in the ordinary way, would meet in about three weeks after the last meeting of the committees. Now, when I say "in the ordinary way" I do not want it to be said that I misquoted the chairman if it should happen to be four weeks instead of three. The point is that the question must come up now. I suggest that if the board decide to leave things as they are, and if any Senator is dissatisfied with that decision, then the best thing for such a Senator to do would be to move for the repeal of the Act, so that that board could be put out of existence. If, on the other hand, the board should decide to increase the wage, then it is a matter for Senators to decide whether that increase is satisfactory or not. If it is satisfactory, I take it that everybody would be satisfied, and if it is not satisfactory, then I take it that Senators may feel that they should do something about it.

I do not think, however, that I can be impressed by a motion of this kind, or by sentimental speeches to the effect that the agricultural wage-earner is in a bad way, and so on, or by humanitarian arguments used to the effect that the man cannot live on his present wages. I have to put up with the machinery that is there, as long as it is there. If, however, the Seanad, by a majority, were to pass a motion that the present machinery is altogether unsatisfactory and that the Act should be repealed, then I say that, naturally, I must be impressed by that and must see what can be done to replace it. Now, so far as the motion is concerned, and I think also so far as the amendment by Senator Counihan and the amendment by Senator Baxter are concerned, all that they really advocate is much what the Agricultural Wages Board have to do themselves.

They have to take all these things into consideration. They have to take into consideration the two big items: what the agricultural labouring man can live on and what the farmer can pay, and they have to do the best they can as between those two considerations. Sometimes it is impossible to reconcile them, but they have to do the best they can, and I think that in that way you have the views of farmers, as to whether they can pay or not, which I think is the big point in Senator Counihan's amendment. Perhaps we cannot regard these men as expert costings officers, and so on, and in that respect we may not meet what Senator Baxter wants; but, on the other hand, they may be the best that we have at the moment, because at least they have been considering this point for the last four or five years. They have, I take it, built up a certain amount of information and knowledge on the subject of what the farmer can afford to pay, and although their decisions may not be based on a scientific foundation, they are based, to a large extent, anyway, on a common-sense view of the situation.

Does the Minister not think that their decisions ought to be based on a scientific foundation, if you can get one?

I do not know whether they would be much better off if you could get a scientific basis, either. I do not know whether a higher wage could be paid. I suppose we would all like that, but some Senators—Senator Counihan for one, and some other Senators—are not sure, I think, that the farmer can pay an increased wage. That is the very point that this Agricultural Wages Board will be dealing with. We may take it for granted that the board, so far as the Labour representatives are concerned, will be persuaded that the agricultural worker should get more, and the farmers' representatives on the board will probably argue against it. I do not know, of course; maybe they will say that they are prepared to pay more, and maybe they will not; but I take it they will argue against it, as farmers here in the Seanad would argue against it to some extent. Now, they may be induced by the chairman to come to some compromise. He may get a decision from the board, or, if he fails to get it, he may make an award himself, but at any rate you have men there sitting around a table where they have got the views of at least one representative of the farmers of every county in the country and at least one representative of the agricultural labourers of every county in the country. They have got all these views before them, and I think they will be in as good a position as we can reasonably expect any man to be in at the moment to discuss this matter of wages.

As I have said, when this thing is over there may be some who will be dissatisfied with the decision. If so, I think the duty of such a Senator is obvious: to put down a motion to have the Agricultural Wages Act rescinded. I think that nothing is going to come of a fairly loose motion and a fairly loose discussion, which talks about an increase in agricultural wages but does not come down to the very material point of how much that is to be, when it is to be given, by whom it is to be paid, and from what source the money is to be got. These are the points that the board will deal with, and I think these are the points that matter in a case like this. It does not matter very much to the farmers or to the agricultural labourers what Senator is in favour of an increased wage or what Senator is against it: what does really matter is the particular points of how much is to be paid, where it is to come from, who is to pay it, when it is to operate, over what period it is to operate, and so on. For these reasons, therefore, I am strongly of opinion that the motion should not be pressed to a decision, at least until—in fact, not at any time, in my opinion—but at least until the board have met, and possibly that will be within the next two or three weeks.

Leis an bhfírinne a rá, bhí fúm labhairt i nGaedhilge amháin ar an gceist seo tráthnóna, ach tá mé sásta go bhfuair an teanga cothrom na féinne go maith san óráid spéisiúil a thug mo chara Cú Uladh anois díreach uaidh. Ach tá fáth eile agam le m'aigne athrú, agus sé an fáth é sin go mba mhian liom freagra thabhairt ar roinnt rudaí a dúbhradh an lá deiridh agus an cheist seo á plé againn, agus ós rud é nach dtuigfeadh na daoine atá i gceist agam ní maith liom labhairt i slí nach dtuigfidís an méid atá le rá agam.

I should not be surprised if the discussion, so far as it has gone at any rate, should have led to some confusion.

As a matter of fact, the position could hardly be otherwise in view of the clash of ideas implied in the motion and in the two amendments which have been tabled to it. Senator Foran did not waste much time, last day, in proposing his motion, and he certainly put such points as he wished to make very briefly and very clearly. For myself, I would be very happy indeed if I could see how it would be possible to give our agricultural labourers as high a rate of wages as is being paid to similar workers in England. I think Senator Foran mentioned that they are getting up to £3 a week, and that their getting it does not depend on whether they are 20 years of age or not. I believe that, in the first place, if this were a very rich country and if we were at war, and, further, if we had our backs to the wall and had, incidentally, a very rich Empire under our control, it might be possible to do it. But one thing we ought to remember is this: that it takes the threat and, I should say, the immediate threat of a great catastrophe to bring people to such a frame of mind that they will hand over, or that they will allow to be taken from them, such wealth as they possess in order that production may be assured in directions considered advisable by the Government and at prices considered expedient by the Government. Back of all this there would still be the day of reckoning.

To what extent wages can be raised here, in view of all our circumstances, I will not attempt to say. The proposer of the motion, as the Minister has pointed out, did not say to what extent they should be raised; nor did he say, explicitly at any rate, from what source the increase should come. These are matters that should be dealt with. We have just completed a long discussion on the price of wheat. Some people hold that the increase granted is really in the nature of a bonus or, if you like to put it in another way, in the nature of an insurance premium which is being levied off the community in general to ensure its full supply of essential foodstuffs from the rural section of the community. Others, on the other hand, contend that the increase merely secures to the farmers their costs of production and no more. These are the two views that are held on that question of the increase in the price of wheat. Who is going to decide which is the correct view? If the first view is correct, then obviously it is on the farmers that the demand for this increase in wages must be made. If the second view is correct, then the urban community must foot the bill.

I may have done Senator Foran an injustice by saying that he did not say definitely from what source this increase in the wages of agricultural workers might come. I recall that he did say something like this, that the farmers were fairly satisfied. The Senator possibly subscribes to the first view and, if he is correct in that, then the farmers, being a generous body, may be willing to share their satisfaction with the people whom this motion is designed to assist. I have seen sad cases of poverty in rural Ireland, cases where the fault could not fairly be laid at the doors of the sufferers themselves. But cases of poverty, from whatever cause, are happily a very very small proportion of the agricultural population. On the other hand, while what we call the nominal wage of the agricultural labourer may seem very small—and I agree, when all is said and done, that it is small—yet when it is measured in terms of real wages certain very important compensations are revealed. For instance, it would scarcely be denied that such items as rent, fuel, and the availability of food commodities of various kinds are of real advantage to the rural worker as compared with the position of the urban worker.

Now I know that Senator Foran did not suggest that wages in the urban centres should be taken as a fair standard by which to gauge the wages of the agricultural labourers. I am sure Senator Foran would be the last to suggest that the wages of the urban workers secure anything like the standard of living that he would consider reasonable, and I certainly will agree with him in that. But I will have to add this, that I wish I could see how a real rise in the standards could be achieved, especially under present conditions; that is a rise in wages which would in effect mean a genuine rise in the general standard of living. Any rise in wages which does not bring in its train a rise in the standard of living in the way I have mentioned would be useless.

But to return to the point, it was suggested during the debate that the rural workers were very much worse off than the urban workers. It was stated in the course of the debate, by Senator Dr. Doyle, I believe, that the whole trend of legislation in recent years has been against the agricultural worker. Now in view of the peculiar conditions of rural economy I should like to ask is it really unjust, for instance, to cut off the rural worker from unemployment benefit during a certain three months of the year? In view of, say, rural housing developments, the establishment of the agricultural wages boards, which have been dealt with by the Minister just now and which seem to have functioned very well and smoothly up to this, in view of the extension of medical and dental services, hospitalisation, and even the extension of unemployment allowances, not to mention many other advantages, it is hardly fair to say that the whole trend of legislation is against the agricultural labourer. It is a pity Senator Dr. Doyle did not expand on that bold, forward policy which he recommended to the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Finance. Perhaps some Senator could name a committee of magicians, such as Senator Foran recommended to Senator Counihan, to aid the Ministers.

Like the wages of the agricultural labourers, various advantages sought to be given as result of legislation may not be as high as one would like them to be, but that is another point altogether.

An amendment before the House recommends the establishment of a board or organisation which would be responsible for obtaining agricultural costings, and it suggests that the payment of increased wages to agricultural workers should depend on that organisation finding that the industry could afford such increase. The proposer of the amendment deplored the fact that in this country so little had been done on the question of costings. The Senator's words were: "We have not here what they have in other countries, any sort of technical organisation for determining costings in agriculture. In fact," the Senator continued, "we are one of the most backward countries in the world in that respect." The quotation is from the Official Debates, Volume 26, No.6, page 555. If the extent to which some of our agricultural spokesmen are informed were indicative of the knowledge of people throughout the country, then I would be inclined to agree that we are one of the most backward countries in the world. The Senator also said: "We have not even any sort of technical organisation dealing with costs." Surely the Munster Institute is a highly technical organisation. Its tests and its costings are published in considerable detail periodically. We have cow-testing associations. Are not these associations in fact costings organisations? Does not almost every county committee of agriculture engage in costings activities? There are other bodies engaged in that work, for instance, our agricultural colleges.

What colleges?

The agricultural college attached to University College, Dublin, for instance. In what was almost the next breath Senator Baxter then proceeded to say——

I do not like interrupting the Senator but would he mind explaining what has been done at University College that is typical of costings on the ordinary farm?

When the Senator was speaking on the last occasion, I ventured to ask him a question and I do not think he was at all pleased that I did so.

The Senator misrepresented me.

If the Senator was not pleased, I have a good deal of sympathy with him. I should like to be allowed to say what I have to say without being interrupted.

I am sorry.

The Senator said on the last occasion that it was unfair of me to butt in on him, so I hope he will realise that it is unfair for him to butt in on other people, as he so often does.

As a matter of personal explanation, the Senator put an improper interpretation on the facts. I simply asked a question now.

The Senator can make his speech.

Yes, I will speak.

In what was almost the next breath the Senator proceeded to say: "The Minister for Agriculture and Senators are aware of the work that was done by Professor Murphy of University College, Cork." The paper which he held in his hand at the time and to which he was referring, opened with these words: "In May, 1938, an inquiry was started by the Department of Dairy Accountancy and Economics, University College, Cork, into the costs and income of a number of dairy farms on the Cork-Limerick border." So, there is a department of dairy accountancy and economics in the country in addition to the organisations I have already mentioned! The Senator, of course, may declare that he does not recognise the Department of Dairy Accountancy and Economics of University College, Cork, as a technical agricultural costings organisation. I have discovered that it is difficult to please him. But, at any rate, it is interesting to note that he relied on the findings of that department to support whatever case he was trying to make here. I presumed Senator Baxter had made a study of the report in question and was about to discuss it, which, of course, he would be entitled to do. Because of that I ventured to ask him if he considered children of 14 years of age should be considered as adults in a survey of the kind. I should like to have heard his opinion on that as well as on a few other points, but to put it mildly, he was not very encouraging.

On a point of correction, they were not considered as adults.

What I had in mind at the time were the difficulties that those studying problems of urban industry and unemployment are confronted with in connection with what is called juvenile labour and I was wondering to what extent young people between 14 and 18 might be considered as juveniles in connection with agricultural employment. I was also troubled with this point, that in view of the efforts we are making to get parents to continue to send their children, after leaving the national schools at 14 years of age, to our vocational schools and to agricultural schools, if it is eventually decided to establish them, what exact importance would be attached to the losing of the services of these children or juveniles. That was a very important point and I thought that one who poses as an authority—and I suppose he has the right to claim considerable knowledge of the problem— would be able to help me. However, later on he suggested that the results of the survey were being contested and further stated that any Senator was free to challenge them publicly. I have already stated that when I want information on technical matters I like to go to the expert for it.

I assure the Senator that I had no intention of contesting Professor Murphy's results. I admire his valuable contribution in this matter of farm costings and I am very sorry to see the work of this young man being used—or misused—in the way it is. I should not be surprised if it were to deter him and people like him from engaging in such difficult and such arduous work or publishing their results in future. When I go to experts for information I am always entitled to seek an explanation on matters on which I am not clear. For instance, I should have liked to know from Senator Baxter to what extent he would consider that the results of a survey covering the years 31st May, 1937, to 30th April, 1939, would be applicable, say, to the present time; to what extent they might be taken as a guide to conditions obtaining to-day. I should like to know whether the wage of 25/- mentioned in the report is really typical of the wage being paid to-day. By the way, I might remind the Senator that although he had that paper in his hand he misquoted the wage mentioned by Professor Murphy.

I was not quoting Professor Murphy at all.

I am sorry. The wage mentioned in the paper actually was 25/- and not 24/-. One shilling may not seem a very big lot but as a percentage it is certainly important.

The main object of costings, as many Senators know, is to discover as accurately as possible the cost of production.

May I interrupt the Senator again to say that what I was referring to was the wage fixed by the Agricultural Wages Board? My quotation dealt with wages fixed at 24/-, 27/- and 30/- by the board. They were not Professor Murphy's figures.

If I have misquoted the Senator or done him any injustice I certainly apologise. As I stated, the main object of costings is to discover as accurately as possible the cost of production of any commodity, to reveal unprofitable operations or activities so that producers could see what steps might be taken to eliminate or reduce them, or else to change their methods of production or the incidence of cost in order that such activities might be made more profitable. Costings usually enable waste to be traced and eliminated and economies to be effected. On the whole the survey of the department of dairy accountancy and economics fulfilled these functions, fulfilled them very well indeed, but I am afraid most of them would not be of much interest to Senator Baxter.

While I am referring to costings, I should like to say at the same time that we should not overrate their importance especially in relation to some branches of agriculture. As we know, conditions may change rapidly, and so render much of the costings matter obsolete. Costings are really a branch of statistics and every student of economics and statistics learns very early on in his studies that statistics, which have been described as the raw materials on which the economists largely work, are on occasion of very little help to him in arriving at a conclusion applicable to problems demanding immediate solution. For that reason, I for one, am very slow to use published statistics on every and any occasion without very careful consideration of them beforehand as to their applicability. Very often we must approach the solution of economic and social problems—for instance, the very problem we are discussing, that of raising agricultural wages—on the basis of costings for what such costings are worth, in conjunction with experience and compromise. Senators may wonder why I have devoted so much time to this matter. I shall explain without delay. Senator Baxter unwittingly has directed attention to the manner in which a genuine rise in wages may become possible, namely, as a result of increased or of more profitable production.

It was not done unwittingly at all.

When I studied in the paper, with which Senator Baxter was dealing, some of the items there set down under the heading "Items of Expenditure" and when I noticed amongst other things that between 5 per cent. and 6 per cent. only of the land was tilled, that calf mortality was as high as is recorded in the survey, that milk yields are as low as they are, that so much is spent on concentrates, and that large farms form such a large percentage as a whole, I cannot but feel very confident and hopeful as to the future of this particular branch of agricultural industry, providing, of course, that the purpose of the costings is properly understood and that people are prepared to follow out the lessons which are to be learned from them.

Reference has been made to the rate of interest which should be paid on the capital involved in agriculture. I do not wish to enter just now into any discussion as to whether agriculture should yield as high a rate of profit as, say, a manufacturing industry or commercial enterprise, but I do suggest that owing to the peculiar nature of agriculture, its permanency as an industry, the security with which so much of its capital is endowed, we cannot jump to the conclusion that its profit rates should be as high as those obtainable in other industries or activities.

There may be some hidden reserves somewhere from which the farmers may be compelled to disgorge the wherewithal to meet wage increases. Failing that, on the other hand, it may be possible to mulct the urban community for a further levy, but in the meantime I suggest that a more complete use might be made by certain agricultural labourers of the resources already made available to them for the definite purpose of supplementing their ordinary earnings. It is anything but a satisfaction to read of a board of health having to threaten some of the occupiers of its cottages with eviction if they do not till the land included with cottages, a half-acre or acre in many cases, for which many of them pay 2/- or a little more per week, inclusive of rates. More profitable production on the farms, more production by labourers themselves of poultry, for instance, on which the future economic well-being of the country will largely depend, more production by the cottiers of pigs, honey and so on, are the only sources from which a real rise in wages can come. It is from these sources and these sources only that it is possible to raise the standard of living which is what Senator Foran has in mind. For that reason, I must incline to the view expressed by the Minister that the wiser course for us would be to leave this matter to the special organisations which have been established to deal with them, namely, the Agricultural Wages Boards. As far as I know these boards have functioned very smoothly. All interested parties are represented on them, and it would be very unwise on our part at this juncture to butt in by passing this motion, especially in the terms in which it has been put down. I do hope the motion will be withdrawn.

At the outset, I would like to say that I was not at all pleased with the Minister's attitude in connection with this matter. After all, I do not see why, if a member of this House thinks something is not going right, he should not raise it here. The fact that the Agricultural Wages Boards are there and that they have not given sufficient wages to agricultural workers indicates that this is the only place we can raise that matter. Should there be a vote on this motion I do not think one Senator would vote against giving increased wages to agricultural workers.

Nowadays, we hear a lot of talk to the effect—and, of course, it is a fact— that the nation is dependent on produce from the soil. Is it not too bad, then, that the very people who produce food from the soil can never themselves think of having a square meal? I look upon it as being a very serious state of affairs that the very people to whom the production of food for every individual in the nation is entrusted, do not get half enough themselves. Take the case of any farm labourer. Senator Baxter suggested that some of these labourers were better off than the farmers; but take the case of an agricultural labourer with six children who is in receipt of a wage, say, of 30/- a week. He has got to pay rent and other outgoings, but let us assume that he pays no rent, and that there are seven in his household. It takes 27/- per week to keep two inmates in the Dublin Union. That means that the people who are primarily responsible for producing the food of the people are not half as well off as inmates of the Dublin Union.

I, for one, make no apology for subscribing my name to the motion, in order to try to lighten the burden of these people, and I hope the Seanad will pass the motion. If it does no good, it will certainly do no harm. I am not satisfied that the Wages Board has tackled this question in a proper manner. Senator Baxter has raised the question of farmers' costings, but the Senator should not forget that within the past ten years the farmers have obtained many concessions. They have had their annuities halved; they have got a 50 per cent. increase in the guaranteed price of their produce; they have got grants for the improvement of their land, and a remission of agricultural rates; but the poor farm labourer has got practically nothing. I am not one of those who say that all farmers are in a position to pay increased wages, but I do say that if the farmer is not fit to pay a fair wage, the nation should pay it, and should see that people who are stuck in the soil from Monday morning to Saturday night must be properly provided for by the people of the nation.

This is a very serious question, a question that will have to be tackled sooner or later. I know a case of a farm labourer who reared six sons, and not one of these would follow the occupation of his father. I asked the last of them why he was not taking up his father's occupation. He replied that he would not be such a fool, that his father had to work very hard but never saw anything for it. I say it is no wonder that people are leaving the land and coming into the city. In County Dublin, a farm labourer, who has won two or three prizes as a ploughman, is working for 33/- a week. His daughter has nearly double that wage in industrial work. I am not saying that she is getting too much, but these are the facts, and I feel that if we are to keep the people on the land, and if we are to produce the food that the nation requires, it is not going to be done by leaving the people who are directly responsible for the production of that food to work under sweated labour conditions for a miserable wage. You cannot have prosperity in the country by allowing these people to go half-starved.

At the last meeting of the Seanad the Minister for Agriculture told us, I think, that prices of agricultural produce in this country were as good as they were in England while at the same time we were told the wage of the agricultural labourer in England was £3 per week. I can state here to-night that the wage of an agricultural labourer in England is £3 15s. Surely if English farmers can pay £3 15s. to their agricultural labourers, we should be able to pay at least half that figure? I, for one, should like to see the standard of living of the agricultural worker raised as it should be because I feel he is one of the most important workers within the nation. We have heard a lot of talk in this debate about professors and the statistics given by professors. Are we not all professors in this matter? Surely each one of us has sufficient intelligence to know that no family can exist on 30/- a week? I think the suggestion of Senator Baxter to refer this question to professors is absolutely ridiculous because of the very fact that every Senator will admit that the farm labourer and his wife are compelled to live in a state of semi-starvation. The farm labourer perhaps gets a suit of clothes on the day he gets married and until the day he dies he can never purchase another one. He has to depend on clothes given to him by other people because he can never get the price of another suit together. These are facts that will have to be faced if we are going to keep people on the land. We expect these people to go out and work on the soil where they require more clothes, more boots and in fact more nourishment than people engaged in sheltered positions, and still we refuse to pay them half as well as people engaged in sheltered positions.

I hope that the motion will be passed without a division and that Senators Baxter and Counihan will be decent enough to withdraw their amendments. I am sorry that the Minister has left the House because I should like to know how representatives on the Agricultural Wages Board are selected. I am afraid that they are, at least, not very good trade unionists when they agree to a wage of 30/- a week for agricultural labourers. The Minister has stated that nobody suggested what would be a reasonable wage. I say that a wage of anything less than 45/- a week would be an insult to an agricultural labourer. That is the figure I have arrived at, and I do not think any reasonable person would object to it. Even at that figure, they could not afford many luxuries, but it would be something on which they could reasonably hope to exist. I am glad to have this opportunity of mentioning that I was in a farm labourer's house yesterday evening and I found that there was no tea, sugar, bread, or tobacco there. These are the men we expect to turn out to till the soil and produce essential foodstuffs. We hear all this talk about professors but these are the glaring facts. I shall take anybody who wishes to that house to-night and he will find that I am not exaggerating. I, for one, do not want to have any delay in this matter by waiting for any inquiry by an Agricultural Wages Board. I feel that we should do our duty, and if the Agricultural Wages Board does not do its duty, I shall move that it be abolished.

Would there be any possibility of arriving at an agreement that the question should be put to-night and as to the time it will be put?

Let it be put now.

Nine o'clock is the normal hour for adjournment and it seems unlikely that the debate will have concluded by that hour.

Is there any possibility of arranging that the question be put at 9 o'clock? There appears to be a tendency to talk this thing out. I should like if agreement were arrived at to put the question to-night.

If an arrangement could be made outside the House it would facilitate the Chair.

Is there any hope of agreement?

An agreement outside the House could be made if Parties were involved, but it seems to me to be a matter of who wants to speak and of whether they are prepared to shorten what they want to say or to forgo their right to speak.

Senators Cummins, McGee, Sir John Keane, Mrs. Concannon and Dwyer desire to speak, so that obviously the debate cannot finish.

Would I be in order at this stage in suggesting that the question be put at 10 o'clock?

Might I suggest that the House cannot bind itself unless there is agreement? The most the House can do is to decide, when the matter comes up, whether it shall be put or not. To do anything else would be to do something which we have not the right to do.

The rule in regard to the hour of adjournment adopted by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges is:

It was the view of the Committee that an hour not later than 9 p.m. should by general understanding be adopted for sittings of the House should business warrant sittings to that hour.

I was not referring to that. I was referring to whether it should be put then or whether it should be carried over.

Quite a number of Senators have intimated their intention to speak and that disposes of the matter so far as the Chair is concerned.

The complacency with which the opponents of this motion have dealt with it amazes me, for the reason that they seem to be blind to the fact that we are approaching a very grave crisis in this country's agricultural position. Those of them from the Dublin area who spoke seem to forget what is happening down the country in regard to farm labourers. It was stated here that a farm labourer with six sons would not put one of his sons to this work. That is happening all over the country, and in one generation you may have the country again populated by beasts and a few herds, and may have reached a condition in which the cultivation of the land will be a lost art. No son or daughter of an agricultural labourer will remain on the land, if there is any opportunity of going away anywhere from that land. Why? It is not that they hate the land because I maintain that, when born and reared on the land, they must love every plant, every tree and every stone of the place in which they are born, and will cling to that homestead if there is any inducement to do so. Travelling through parts of Kerry two years ago, I found that there were only a few young people in whole townlands. Few went to the local churches but elderly people, and, according to the latest returns, the males of the country are in a minority, except in areas like Dublin and the areas around big cities.

Anybody who takes cognisance of these facts cannot regard with complacency this great fundamental question of our national existence. Factories are all very well in their way, but from what are the factories to draw their sustenance? Can we ever hope to compete, even when the world comes back to sanity, with the mass-production of large factories and with the enormous firms all over Europe whose entry into the manufacturing world is comparatively recent? Senator McGinley spoke of the Donegal peasants and of the comfort in which they live. He told of the use they made of their homes and their cottages, and I was very glad to hear it, but I think that what is happening in Kerry is, to some extent, happening in Donegal. I was glad to find that he took a different line from that of his colleague who abused the workers for not making proper use of the patches of land they had. Fifty ranchers in Meath have nearly as much land under their control as the whole of the cottier tenants of Ireland, and because a few cottiers here and there allow their land to go waste, the whole mass of the cottiers are criticised and condemned.

If Senator Buckley took the trouble of inquiring, he would probably find that the cottages to which he referred were inhabited by old age pensioners or by old women, and he would probably find also that the plots were not being entirely neglected as would appear from a casual glance, but that there was some industry being carried on there, like the rearing of fowl, and possibly pig production. The cottiers, too, are blamed for going out of pig production. Cottiers are buying, and have bought, bonhams for £2 10s. and £3 and have fed them on expensive foods when they could buy such things for two or three months and have then sold them at cost price and even, I am informed, at less than cost price. What is the inducement there?

It all arises from the fact that the fundamental industry of our country has not got first claim on the community. If the money the farmers are making is not sufficient to enable them to pay the labourer a decent, living wage, then I say the community is in debt to these people who are producing food for the community. Governments have interfered in many countries in respect of farm wages. They have set up farm boards, and although we of the Labour Party advocated the setting up of these boards here, we are very disappointed with their working. Whatever the reason, the working of these boards has not proved satisfactory. In a letter which appeared in the local Press the other day, a branch secretary of the Labour organisation in a district in the south which is almost entirely agricultural, points out that the agricultural workers were at vanishing point. "They hoped," he said, "for brighter days for the agricultural workers when the Agricultural Wages Board was set up, but their hopes were disappointed." As the writer expressed it: the Act was like a strainer, composed of loopholes and the employers with the aid of the lawyers were able to circumvent it. Six hours per day they worked in winter. No employment or wages on wet days. When they complained: "Call in the inspector, if you are dissatisfied," said the employer. The inspector was called in, but he could offer no consolation. The agricultural workers, he said, had no remedy, as the Act clearly stated that they were to be paid only for the hours worked. We found ourselves in the happy position of being worse paid than before the Act was passed.

For some reason or other that has been the result of the Act. Some people think it may be due to the constitution of the board. The Minister fairly outlined its constitution, and said that in actual practice it was all that the ordinary person could expect. The fact, at any rate, is that its operations need early attention. The writer of this letter went on to say that the members who kept the branch of which he was secretary in being were now awaiting their passports to leave the country. That may be an extreme case, but the facts in the letter have been verified. What is described in it is occurring all over the country, and gives cause for alarm. Still, the position is not as bad, or as doleful, as it has been represented by some speakers here. There is still poverty in the midst of overwhelming plenty. We know that there are cases of malnutrition to be found, especially in the rural districts. Some of these have to be cared for at a later stage in our hospitals. Others of them develop tuberculosis, and when sent to hospital their maintenance costs about 28/- a week. The country seems to make nothing of that. Hospitals are being put up which are costing thousands and thousands of pounds. But, when it comes to financing the main industry of the country, people grumble if proposals are put forward to vote a few thousand pounds to assist our farmers and farm labourers to produce the food we need.

In New Zealand they deal with such matters in a different manner. The Government there see that the farmer is placed in a position to enable him to pay his agricultural worker reasonable remuneration so that he may be able to live under Christian conditions. As things are the money system is the bane of civilised life. In the new world that will emerge after this war, I think we will see big alterations. Changes, I think, are bound to take place. We will not then be sending across the world the things that we need at home—beef, bacon, cereals, etc.—in return for what may only be as valuable as the German mark was after the last war. In my opinion the farmers should get adequate prices for the valuable commodities they are exporting to-day.

Instead of cash payment returns for these commodities the Government should insist on getting the raw materials that we are so badly in need of to keep our industries going, agricultural as well as industrial. I think some system of barter should be introduced so that instead of getting cash payments for our farm produce we should get in return coal and the thousand and one other things that our farmers and factories require.

This nation holds an honoured place in the League of Nations. When the State was set up we started off with high ideals and the best of intentions, but despite that we made very few alterations in the traditional methods that brought our agricultural industry to an impoverished state even before the outbreak of the present war. No attempt was ever made to create a home market here. As I said before, we have poverty in the midst of plenty, but while that is so, in the Golden Vale —in Munster—a child has to travel miles before it can get a halfpenny worth of milk. Is it any wonder we see so many children suffering from rickets, malnutrition, and many of our people from mental and physical degeneration. We see that going on before our eyes, and seem to have no remedy for it except to carry on in the old traditional way. It may seem a far-fetched thing to bring the League of Nations into a debate like this, but I submit that it has a distinct bearing on the motion. We are an honoured member of the League of Nations and one of the articles in the Treaty of Versailles, to which we are pledged by virtue of our partnership in the League of Nations, lays it down that:

"It is the duty of a State-member of the League of Nations to secure payment to its employees first of a wage adequate to maintain a reasonable standard of life as it is understood in their time and country."

It is universally acknowledged that the agricultural workers in this country— and by workers I mean farmers as well as labourers because between 40 and 50 per cent. of our farmers employ no labour—are the lowest paid in the world.

That is a rather sweeping statement for the Senator to make unless he is in a position to support it by evidence or by some facts.

What are they paid in China and Japan?

In this Christian civilised land, they are the lowest paid in the world.

The Senator made another rather sweeping statement which I would like him to explain. He said that between 40 and 50 per cent. of our farmers employ no labour. I do not believe a word of that.

That can be said to be true of certain districts in the country.

If you take a square mile of the country, and take the conditions there as your standard, I suppose it would be possible to prove almost anything.

I think Senator Cummins is rather under the mark in the figure he gives so far as certain districts are concerned.

Senator Counihan now says that Senator Cummins is right.

I say that the figures I have given are approximately correct. Before the Wages Board was set up farm labourers enjoyed certain perquisites. Even though their wages were very small, in some cases almost insignificant, they were helped in great measure by these perquisites. They have lost them since this board was set up and are now much worse off than they were before. In the pre-board days, it was the custom, in many cases, to plough their plot of land for them, to give them manure at a cheap rate, and so on. All that, as I have said, has ceased, and all that they receive now under the board is the minimum wage.

The Wages Board has not been functioning properly. If the labourer had 30/- all the year round it would be all right, but it is a seasonal occupation. Very few of the workers are employed all the year round. Until the farmers are in such a position that farm work is carried on season in and season out, and the workers are in constant employment and farm work is carried on continuously as in a factory, I do not think there is very much chance for labour.

In England some years ago, in advocating family allowances, somebody seriously suggested that it would be profitable and beneficial to double the farm wages. What was happening in England then is happening in our own country now—the flight from the land. An increase for farm labourers would raise the purchasing power of the workers and enable them to invest in farm produce. It would do something still more important—it would preserve the race sound and healthy. There is no future for industry that I can see unless it is industry based in large measure on the raw materials and product of the land.

In a statement some time ago in regard to the Wages Board, President Roosevelt stated that any industry unable to pay a reasonable wage to its employees deserved to perish. Unless agriculture can be made pay a reasonable wage to its employees, I see no future for it. It will mean that in one generation you may have the country a wilderness. In this emergency, when you wish to raise the price of grain, Senator Baxter says you should set up a committee. That would be side-tracking: it is drawing a red-berring across the track to suggest a committee. Everybody knows that 30/- is not a living wage.

Some of the men are supposed to be earning 30/- from March to October but there is no unemployment benefit for certain classes of those men for six months of the year. Even though there may be a disabled father and mother, they may perish or seek work elsewhere. That seems to be a terrible state of affairs, and a country based on such things simply cannot live. President Roosevelt said that no business which depends for its existence on paying less than a living wage has any right to continue. There is no use in saying that there is plenty of unemployment in America. There is, but provision is made for the unemployed. They are throwing away animals and food and throwing tea into the river Plata, while the capitalists are looking for benefits and interests.

The President of the Australian Arbitration Board states:—

"Basic wage is understood to mean the lowest wage which can be paid to an unskilled labourer on the basis of the normal needs of an average employee regarded as a human being living in a civilised community."

Wages of £1 a week do not mean more than £20 or £30 a year and a man is expected to live a civilised life on that amount. This concerns 250,000 workers, if we include dependents, apart from a population of up to 2,000,000, possibly, who derive—directly or indirectly—their living from agriculture.

The Government has found money for cases of emergency, to raise the price of wheat and beet, and they could find the money in some way. I do not want to impose any burden on the farmers, but money could be found in the way of credits that may be given. There is £180,000,000 bulging out of our banks at present, looking for investment abroad, and now is the time to invest it in our own country, and secure credits on the strength of the nation. Even one-twentieth part, or less, of those millions, lent to the nation at 1 per cent., which would be a working cost on such an amount, would set up agriculture.

We should not wait until after the war for reconstruction. Now is the time to deal with it. I appeal to any bankers listening to me to-night to consider this matter. It has been raised before in many forms. It is a tragedy that £180,000,000 of our money should be under lock and key, waiting for 10 per cent., 15 per cent., or 20 per cent. gross interest, while lending it would cost only 1 per cent., and would help the nation. The bankers have a great opportunity to rehabilitate themselves now in the life of the people of the country.

Nine o'clock being the hour fixed for the adjournment of the Seanad normally, and several Senators having intimated their intention to speak, obviously the debate cannot be concluded to-night, as it is nine o'clock now. That necessarily means that further debate must be postponed until the next meeting of the Seanad. The debate will be resumed when we meet next—probably on the 11th March. Senator Sir John Keane will resume then.

Debate adjourned.
The Seanad adjourned at 9 p.m.,sine die.
Top
Share