I move:—
That this House requests the Government to introduce proposals for legislation for the purpose of guaranteeing to agricultural workers—
(a) at least one week's annual holiday with pay, and
(b) leave of absence with pay on all Church holydays.
Some people have asked me why I mentioned "Church holydays" instead of bank holidays in this motion and I propose to explain this in a few moments. At the outset, however, I think it is well to state that I believe that the proposals contained in this motion are extremely reasonable. In fact, some Senators may wonder that I have not proposed more for the benefit of agricultural labourers. In this connection, I would like to say that I am very hopeful that, in due course, and as quickly as possible, many other improvements for these workers will also be brought about. I believe that agricultural workers, road workers and farmers with small holdings of land are amongst the lowest paid sections of the community and that anything, therefore, that we can do to benefit them would be most desirable and would deserve the careful consideration of all those in favour of social justice. With regard to holidays, I think Senators will know that the majority of wage-earners in this country already receive holidays with pay. In fact, almost every section of the community, except agricultural labourers, receive holidays. In addition, it will be well to remember that a certain number of agricultural workers already receive holidays owing to arrangements made individually between these workers and the farmers who employ them, or as a result of trade union action.
The object of this motion is that every agricultural worker shall receive holidays in future. Now, some Senators who live in the cities have asked why we, in this motion, suggest Church holydays instead of bank holidays. The reason is that, in rural areas, as I think all Senators from rural areas know, it is the practice already to observe Church holydays in agricultural employment, and not bank holidays. I think it is very desirable that I should make it clear that we are not suggesting both. We are suggesting Church holydays and we believe that the vast majority of agricultural workers would prefer Church holydays. I cannot see any good reason why these workers should not have one week's holiday with pay, and Church holydays, but I am well aware that many arguments have been made against that proposal in the past, and I propose, therefore, briefly to refer to some of those arguments.
One thing, however, that is very encouraging is that our present Minister for Agriculture has on several recent occasions expressed his desire to do what he could to improve the condition of agricultural workers. On the 13th May, 1948, the Minister for Agriculture made this statement in the Dáil—I mention it in case some Senators may not have seen it:—
"It is a source of humiliation to me that the agricultural worker in this country who, in my judgment, is the most highly skilled worker we have, should have the figure of 55/- a week associated with his name as a minimum wage. I hope to change that."
I think that is a very welcome pronouncement. Again, he did not say it merely on one occasion. The Minister said something similar on July 15th:—
"The agricultural worker has a minimum wage throughout the greater part of this country of 55/-per week. Frankly, I am ashamed to name it. He is the lowest paid worker in the English-speaking world, and that is something of which I am bitterly ashamed."
I think we all should be ashamed of that state of affairs, and that we should all do everything in our power to improve his position as quickly as possible. What we have been up against is the mentality of a certain number of people in this country, who seem to accept this present position as natural and right. The Minister made another interesting statement on the 15th July:—
"There has been for long enough in this country a proposition that if you are an industrialist, or a racketeer or an exploiter, you are entitled to wear a silk hat, and drive a Chrysler car, and occupy a house standing in its own grounds in the suburbs of Dublin, and draw your living out of the hard-working men who live upon the land."
That was the Minister's statement. This distinction operates in regard to holidays, as well as in regard to remuneration. Many of the people with a big income, to whom the Minister referred, can also afford to take very long holidays. Some of them have a month, or perhaps more, holidays in the year, while the agricultural worker is not legally entitled to any holidays. It is sometimes argued by those who are opposed to giving holidays to agricultural workers that, as they work in the open air, they should be content to work for 52 weeks of the year without a break. I freely admit that working in the open air in fine weather is pleasanter than working in an enclosed factory, but it is not quite so pleasant working in the open air in very bad weather. There are many farming jobs which involve getting up early in the morning, and working late at night, in surroundings that are not by any means ideal. In that connectior also I would like to quote very briefly another statement by the Minister, because I feel that his words will carry great weight. This is what he said:—
"A lot of people have said that you cannot get fellows and girls to milk cows. I think that is true and I do not blame them. Why should they take work sitting under a cow and getting slapped in the face with the cow's tail, if they can get a good job in the town? If we want people to do agricultural work we have to make that agricultural work as agreeable as rival forms of occupation."
I think that statement by the Minister is very true, and the people who have to get slapped in the face with the cow's tail deserve some compensation, in the form of some holidays on pay.
I base the whole of this proposal on fair play and social justice, but there is also another consideration, and that is, that if we do not improve the condition of agricultural workers they will, as the Minister has said, go to the towns or emigrate to England: In fact, large numbers of them have already done so, and that tendency will continue unless their conditions are improved.
It has been rightly stated that the farmer with a small holding should receive as much consideration as the agricultural worker who is paid a wage. Personally, I do not wish to make any distinction between them. The man with the small holding undoubtedly deserves consideration also. I would like to see his position improved, as well as that of the agricultural labourer, for there is no doubt that many men with small holdings have a very low standard of living. I find that in the West of Ireland, where I come from, many of them are as badly off as the agricultural labourer. In order that they should have more leisure, and be able to take a little holiday from their normal work, one very necessary thing for them is suitable machinery. In that connection, I was very glad to read in the newspaper recently that the Minister for Agriculture stated that plans were being made to give the small farmers the use of up-to-date machinery through co-operative societies. The sooner that is done the better, provided they get machinery on reasonable terms. That should help to increase production, and also to lighten their labour and enable them to have more leisure.
With regard to leisure, one of the arguments that has been made in the past against giving holidays to agricultural workers is that we are short of food, that we need increased production. I entirely agree but, no matter how much we need increased production, I do not think it would be justifiable to ask anybody to work 52 weeks of the year without a break. In civilised countries it is an accepted fact that everybody should have a reasonable amount of leisure. If people have a little leisure they usually work all the better for the remainder of the year. I agree entirely that increased production is very necessary, not only in this country but all over the world, if we are to secure a much better standard of living for the lower-paid sections of the community. I consider, however, that everybody should get a fair share of leisure. Agricultural labourers work longer hours than the majority of other workers, and yet the vast majority of other workers get longer holidays than they get. There are many people in this country who get a fortnight's holidays. There is a certain number who get a month's holidays, and even more. Why should the agricultural worker get no paid holidays at all? Another argument used against giving holidays to the agricultural worker is that it would make it difficult for a farmer to carry on the work of the farm. I am a farmer, and I fully realise that you cannot close down a farm for a week, as you could close down a factory. The holidays would have to be "staggered". All the workers could not get their holidays the same week. I do not think there would be any objection to "staggering" the holidays. I believe a friendly arrangement could be reached between the agricultural workers and the farmers with whom they worked so that the necessary work of the farm would be carried on, and that each man would get a week's holiday during the year.
In the same way, with regard to Church holydays, on a farm we recognise that on Sundays, holydays and on every other day we have to milk cows and do every other necessary work. My idea is that it should not be always the same men who are on the job. On the farm on which I work, we take the work in turn, and every man gets a certain amount of leisure.
Another argument used in the past was that the country could not afford to give these conditions. I believe that, although the country is not wealthy, and although our national income is not very great, we are not quite so poor as all that. We could afford to give the agricultural workers one week's holidays in the year, and Church holydays. According to the present rate of wages that would work out at approximately £8 per man per year, which is not a very large amount. If you calculate at the rate of £2 15s. Od. a week which covers most of the country, it would come to £8 a year approximately per man.
Enormous sums of money are being spent in this country by some of the wealthier sections of the community on luxuries and amusements, and, I think, some of the money which they spend in that way should be used to benefit the poorer sections. It has also been said that some individual farmers cannot afford to give these conditions. If there are still some such farmers, I think they should be put into the position in which they can pay the small amount which we are asking. I admit that, in the past, many farmers got such low prices for their produce, and were up against so many other difficulties, that it was, in fact, impossible for them to give really decent wages to the agricultural workers.
Another Senator mentioned here recently that some farmers are already giving their workers a little more than the Agricultural Wages Board rate of wages. Some farmers already give their workers some holidays with pay, and some of them give their workers a little bonus, if they have a good year or if they get a good price for their stock or produce. I believe that every farmer should be put in a position in which he could afford to pay a decent wage to the agricultural workers. I realise that to put all farmers in a position to pay a really good wage may take a little time. It cannot be done immediately, but I do not think it will take very long to enable every farmer to be able to pay the additional £8 per year per worker which we now suggest. The Minister has said on many occasions recently that he is doing everything in his power to improve the economic condition of the farmers so as to enable them to pay a better wage.
I think that this small concession that we are asking is long overdue. I hope, as I said at the outset, that much greater benefits will be conferred on agricultural workers as soon as possible. I do not think I need take up the time of the House any longer in putting forward any other arguments in favour of this proposal. If any points are raised, I will, at the end of the debate, be able to reply to them. I consider that the proposal is a very reasonable one. What we are asking is long overdue. The granting of it would benefit one of the most hard-wording and underpaid sections of the community.