I move:—
Recognising the importance to the community of the agricultural industry and the necessity of maintaining in that industry the maximum number of persons gainfully employed, this House deplores the inadequacy of the measures taken up to the present for ensuring to the farmer an adequate remuneration for his services and the low level of wages provided for the agricultural worker; calls attention to the unsatisfactory character of the machinery set up by statute to fix and regulate agricultural wages and requests the Government to—
(a) provide by legislation for the payment of a guaranteed economic price for all agricultural produce including live stock and live-stock products, and
(b) reconstitute the Agricultural Wages Board in such a manner as to afford to agricultural workers direct representation on the board; and to take such action as may be necessary to ensure that agricultural workers will be paid a living wage adequate to the needs of the worker and his family.
This motion in the name of Senator Smyth and myself was put down in the hope of drawing attention to the plight of those engaged in the agricultural industry, so that as a result of discussion, an agreement might be reached which would result in raising the standard of living of those on the land. If this House can do something to improve the position of those engaged in agriculture I am satisfied that it would have justified itself. I hope that every Senator interested in agriculture, which is the foundation of all our industries, will help in raising the standard of living of those who are engaged in it. We have had a native Government for a quarter of a century and it has effected many improvements throughout the country, the one exception being agricultural labourers and small-tenant farmers or uneconomic farmers. I approve of the tillage policy of the Government wholeheartedly. I support that policy because I believe that every farm, when the land is properly utilised, is the centre of a small industry. Being in agreement with the Government's tillage policy, I think it is too bad that the standard of living of these workers is so low, and that there should be such a difference between their standard of living and that of other sections of the community. That is not saying that the standard of any section is too high. I take it that no Senator will contend that a family could exist at the present time on a wage of £2 weekly. That is one point upon which I think there will be general agreement. We hear every day that those engaged in the agricultural industry form the most important section of our people, and that without them the nation could not progress. Why, then, is that section kept just above the borderline of starvation? As a matter of fact, it amounts practically to starvation to expect a family to exist on £2 weekly.
I cannot understand why the Government has not tackled the question in some way so that the present state of affairs would end. There are difficulties. I am not one to minimise these difficulties, but the question is of such vital concern to the existence of the nation that all Parties should join in an effort to raise the standard of living of these people. Apart from the question of food, what chance have these workers of buying clothing? Since the war started a farm labourer could not afford to purchase a suit of clothes. Where would the price come from? Considering the cost of food, everybody must admit that there must be hunger in an average family of seven that has to live on £2 a week. No section requires more clothing and boots than farm labourers and their families. The price of bed clothing is beyond their reach. Farm labourers have long hours of work, no holidays, and no conditions of employment. From the cradle to the grave, they do not have holidays, and even if they got them, they would not have the necessary money. They have no comfort, but hard work. Is it any wonder then that we read of a decrease in the population of rural areas and of declining school averages? Can we blame farm labourers for leaving this country to try to better themselves elsewhere? Who could expect them to stay here, when their wives and children are in poor circumstances, if they can better themselves?
In rural districts there is a decline in the average attendance at schools as well as increased emigration. Every county medical officer is complaining about malnutrition, a beautiful word for starvation. It is no wonder there is malnutrition and that children suffer from malnutrition when their parents or others responsible for them have not sufficient money to buy enough food to keep them. We hear talk about the prevention of tuberculosis. Picture the farm labourer who has only one suit of clothes. He has to work in that suit all day and when he goes home, there is not sufficient firing—and this is particularly true of Dublin and Meath at present—to dry his suit, with the result that he has to turn out in that damp clothing next morning. It is no wonder that the incidence of tuberculosis is as high as it is amongst that section. I say it is due to want of food, want of clothing and want of firing.
With regard to the increase in emigration, there was at all times in this country a certain section who were very anxious to emigrate and I will even go as far as admitting that occasionally there may have been isolated cases of persons leaving the country who had no need to go; but remember that the people in rural areas who are now going are forced to leave because of downright poverty and starvation. What is completely beyond my understanding is how it is that, in a Christian country, we cannot give these people employment, when, by going across to another country, a democratic country, with the same system of Government as ours, they can get employment at big wages. They are employed making implements which, if the war were to end tomorrow, could be dumped into the sea as useless and which, if they are used, must be used for the destruction of life. In this country we cannot give them employment at decent wages in producing something for the betterment and happiness of humanity in general.
These people are forced, as I say, to emigrate because of want and starvation in their homes and not because of love for any foreign country. I am not blaming the present Government —I am speaking in general—but if the Government of the Irish people is not fit to provide for these people, we should be honest about it. I say that they could be provided for here. We have the raw materials in the shape of land and bogs and useful occupations to which they could be put at a living wage, and I cannot understand why the problem has not been tackled in such a way as to bring that about. If the Government had tackled the question, it would have been done, and I fail to understand why it is the one matter which has been left aside.
If it were not for the farmer and the farm labourer, I wonder where our neutrality would be. It is very poor recompense to the farm labourer to have to see his children taking the emigrant ship, and the farmer himself has not much to boast of at present. We hear much about different types of social security schemes, but I remind the House that the Irish people in days gone by were a very proud people. They went to the far corners of the earth, even to the uncivilised parts, to earn the honest living which they could not get at home, and the majority of the Irish people to-day do not want doles or charity as much as they want employment at good wages. I remind Senators further that this nation will never prosper when we are reduced to putting so many of our people on doles and starvation wages. The only hope for the country lies in putting our people at work which will give a return and give them a decent living wage, because so long as we starve the worker, I believe we starve everybody. It is not, in my opinion, a good or a sound policy.
Going back to the days when the State was founded, we find that, in the proclamation of the men of Easter Week, of which we are all proud, it is stated that there should be equal rights for all our citizens Is the principle of equal rights given effect to when the most important man in the nation, the man who is keeping the nation in existence at present, is asked to work every day in the year and every hour of the day, whether wet or fine, for £2 per week, in a nation where people are paid £20 a week? I cannot see how it can be said that there are equal rights for all citizens on that basis. I say that it is wrong—and I do not mind who is offended—that a small section should get such an amount and that the more important man, so far as the nation is concerned, should get so little. The higher civil servant is non-productive so far as the nation is concerned. He is not as important as the agricultural labourer who has to work out in the muck from Monday morning to Saturday night for £2 per week.
I stand for a decent living wage for all, but we have raised the standard very high in some cases while leaving it very low in the case of the farm labourer. Not alone have we left the standard of the farm labourer low, but we have passed measures which mark a difference between those living in rural areas and those living in urban centres. More than one Act and more than one Order made by the Government gives preferential treatment to people resident in cities and urban areas as against those in rural areas. We say that we desire to encourage people to stay on the land, not to leave the rural areas, while encouraging them, even by Acts of Parliament, to move into the cities because it is to their advantage to do so. That has been done in different Acts, in the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Acts, for instance, and it is one of the matters which should be amended forthwith. If I were living in a rural area and thought my days were coming to an end, it would pay me, if I had a proper interest in my wife and children, to move into the City of Dublin because the amount I would receive would be higher. It is a bad policy because children reared in a rural area would be trained in agricultural work and would, I believe, be a greater asset to the nation later on.
So far as the farmer's side of the question is concerned, I do not intend to go at length into that. I shall leave it to Senator Counihan to put the farmer's side of it. I am sorry that Senator Baxter is not here. But I will say that I am not satisfied that the farmer is getting a sufficient price for certain commodities. I am sure Senator Counihan will put up that point.