Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Mar 1951

Vol. 39 No. 8

Report of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. - Agricultural Workers (Weekly Half-Holidays) Bill, 1950—Committee.

SECTION 1.

It is proposed to take amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to Section 1 together.

I move amendments Nos. 1 and 2 standing in my name:—

In lines 13 and 14 to delete the words "or includes".

In line 14 to delete all words after the word "agriculture".

The first amendment proposes to delete the words "or includes" in lines 13 and 14. To my mind, the words "or includes" are superfluous. I believe that "any person employed in work in agriculture" should be quite sufficient. The addition of the words "or includes" seems to me to be just making the position more confused. I take it that the purpose of the Bill is to provide a half-holiday for persons employed in rural areas. I think that a definition of what would be mainly domestic would be very difficult. It would be very difficult to decide in respect of a great number of people whether the work upon which they were employed was mainly domestic or agricultural. Take the case of a person working with a farmer who has a certain amount of domestic work to do and at the same time would be employed carrying food for animals or working in the garden, or binding. That would be a very difficult thing to decide. I feel that if people who are employed in domestic work in rural areas are getting a half-holiday it is only right that this other type of person should get it. When passing this Bill at all we should not have any restrictive clause. I urge Senator O'Connell to accept the amendment and if people employed in domestic work get a holiday as a result of that it would be a step in the right direction.

I do not know if this amendment is necessary or serves any purpose. The position is clear enough.

"... whose work under such contract is or includes work in agriculture."

First of all I should point out that provision has already been made for domestic servants to get half-holidays. It is difficult to determine whether a man who is engaged by a farmer and is sent in to prepare tea for the rest of the men is engaged in agriculture. Is he not engaged in agriculture? Deleting these words does not strengthen in any way the section as it stands. I think it is quite clear as it stands. I would not be inclined to accept that amendment. I do not think it is necessary.

I am not very much concerned with it, and since people who are engaged in domestic work are covered already, I withdraw it.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 3:—

In line 15, after the word "domestic", to add the words "nor a herd whose main work on a farm is the care and management of live stock".

I am sure that a number of people in the House do not understand the responsibility a herd has on the farm. He is the most important man on the farm and he is never off duty. Although his actual working hours might not number more than four or five, he is still responsible for the care and management of the stock for the entire 24 hours. The herd on a farm is an expert and has to be capable of treating cattle. He may have to start at 4 o'clock or 5 o'clock in the morning and look at the cattle, and then have another look at them in the evening, and, if he has sick animals to attend to, he must be available, like the veterinary surgeon or dispensary doctor.

In many cases, he is an institution on the farm and his job is one which very often goes down from father to son. It takes a long time to make him an expert. In many cases, the herd is a farmer himself, a small farmer in the district who takes on a contract to look after cattle on a bigger farm, and it would be very hard on a farmer to have to say to him that he must take a half-day. I have winterage in County Wicklow, and for six months of the year there is not an animal on that land, except the few cattle and a pony belonging to the herd. It is dry mountain land and useful only for the winter. Senators from the West will know that, in Clare, Kerry, and several other counties, the same thing applies —no cattle are grazed on some of the winterages there, except from October to the middle or the end of April. I cannot see how a half-holiday can be arranged for in the case of such a herd. The only proper line to take is to exclude him from the provisions of this Bill.

We must oppose this amendment. Senator Counihan, true to form, opened with the statement that the herd was a man who is on duty all the time and his idea is that he should be kept on duty all the time when the purpose of the Bill is to give this relief to certain classes of workers. Every farmer, no matter what his category is, keeps stock of some kind, and, if the amendment were to be accepted, it would kill the whole purpose of the Bill because a farmer could make the case at any time that his workers were herds, within the meaning of this provision. The amendment may look very simple, but it is very serious when one studies its implications. I do not know how anybody could define a herd because every man working for a farmer or on a farm is in some way responsible for looking after the stock and the farmer could make the case that he is a herd and not subject to the provisions of the Bill.

In supporting the amendment, I should like to say that this is not an aspect of farming with which I am too familiar. I do not know that the amendment, as drafted, is the best way to achieve what the Senator wants, but it is very important that we, when passing legislation, should ensure that that legislation is in such a form as will make it workable. That is just the difficulty in regard to this point. Senator McCrea knows quite well the difference between a herd and a ploughman on the farm. The herd is employed to look after the live stock. He has no responsibility in the matter of going out to the plough in the field, for harvesting or anything of that nature. The live stock are his sole responsibility and he has to be out in the morning—certainly on spring mornings—and during the year when the cattle are rising to put his cattle out and to see that they are all right. Similarly, he must look after them in the evening, and, if there are sheep on the farm, he must attend to these too at lambing time and so on. He may have an hour, or, at most, two hours' work in the morning, after which he eases off, and then has to look after them again in the evening. If one animal is ill when he goes out in the evening, he is in a peculiar position, as also in his master, because, if he is a careful person, he will want to be on the spot to look after the sick animal. There is no use in trying to plan on the basis of somebody coming in for the half-day and taking over responsibility for the herd when animals are sick and require attendance, without the "vet." because in many instances these herds are just as efficient as a competent "vet". The position is that he just cannot be replaced.

Suppose he is ill?

If he is, the farmer will have to take on his job, and that is not an uncommon occurrence. The difficulty I see with regard to it is that it is next to impossible to legislate in such a way as to ensure that the herd will have his day off, and that is the part of the Bill which I regard as impracticable. How can you apply these industrial conditions to the management of live stock? From my knowledge of farming and of live stock, I know that you cannot do it. Where a man goes out to look at cattle in the morning or the evening and finds one of them seriously ill—perhaps a very valuable animal—you cannot make provision for somebody else to come in and take over. If you try to do that, you are trying to legislate for the impossible. Whether Senator Counihan has put his proposal in the best possible form is another matter, but I have every sympathy with the idea he has in mind.

I should be inclined to support the amendment if this Bill were definitely a Bill to give compulsory half-holidays to agricultural workers, but that is not so, because provision is made in the Bill whereby, in lieu of that half-holiday, certain payments or compensation may be given to the worker who is prepared to stay on working. A herd is more or less the manager of a farm. If we pass this amendment we will deprive the most important person on the farm of the benefit, if not of the half-holiday, of the increase which he will get as a result of not availing of the half-holiday.

What I had to say has been very ably said by Senator Hawkins. I submit that the argument in favour of this amendment by Senator Counihan, and supported by Senator Baxter, is really an argument against the passing of the Bill rather than an argument in favour of the amendment. This amendment seeks to exclude a particular group of agricultural workers from the scope of the Act, when it becomes law. Neither the mover of the amendment for Senator Baxter has suggested that the herd is more important than the agricultural worker on a dairy farm where the cows have to be attended to every morning and every evening, day in and day out, including Christmas Day. Being interested in that type of agriculture, Senator Counihan may argue that the herd is more important than the agricultural worker on a dairy or on a mixed farm.

He looks after the dairy cows, too.

Agreed, that may be so. However, if a case can be made for the exclusion of the herd I submit it is a good argument against the passing of this Bill. I may have mixed feelings about this Bill but I would oppose this amendment because it would be unfair to pass a Bill excluding one particular group of workers from its scope. In effect, it would mean that people engaged in that type of agriculture would either have to grant the half-holiday or alternatively pay extra remuneration to ensure that the worker will not in fact take the half-holiday. I believe that the intention of this Bill is really to give an increase in the agricultural wage. I believe that farmers will give an extra amount of money to the worker and that the worker will continue to work. I think most people in this House think that that is what will happen. Consider the position on a farm at the harvest. Surely, the farmer would expect his worker to work on the half-day even if it meant that he would have to pay extra. As that will be the position on many mixed farms, I submit that it is no reason why the herd should be excluded. It would be putting a particular type of farming—not the best type of farming from a national point of view—in a privileged position. The majority of our farmers carry on dairy farming or mixed farming or any other type of farming than grass land and the farmers, when this Bill becomes law, will have to pay extra. Surely it would be unfair to exclude, by this amendment, the operation of this Bill in so far as herds are concerned. It would be quite wrong.

It seems to me that what this boils down to is that a man can say: "I would prefer the money to the time off." I think that that is a rotten principle and it is one to which I do not subscribe.

We are dealing with one particular amendment— amendment No. 3.

I have not much to add to what Senator O'Reilly and Senator Hawkins have said on this amendment except to point out that I am not aware of any legal definition of the word "herd". If this word appears in the Bill without a proper definition I can foresee all sorts of legal confusion and wrangling. I was surprised that a farmer such as Senator Baxter should brush the matter aside and say that everybody knows what is meant by a "herd". He appears to imply that a herd has one job and one job only.

That was my interpretation.

I am certain that there are very few farms in this country where there are men confined to that particular work only. It may be so on a few very large farms, but in the majority of the farms where there are one or two men are employed, surely their work is not confined entirely to the care of animals. In any event, not alone would there be confusion about the definition of "herd", but there would be confusion also about the expression "...whose main work on a farm". What exactly is meant by "main work"? If this amendment is accepted, quite a number of workers all over the country will be excluded from the provisions of this Bill, which the House has already agreed, in principle, should be given to them. I could not, under any circumstances, accept this amendment (1) because it would deprive a great many men of the privilege already agreed to in principle, and (2) because it would lead to all sorts of confusion in regard to the definition of "herd" and the definition of "main work on a farm".

If Senator Dr. O'Connell knew anything about the practice of farming in his own county he would not have made the foolish statement which he has just made that he knows nothing about herds. I know his county. In Connemara and in Kerry the herd is a small farmer, and he has charge of the sheep belonging to one or two or more people. One or perhaps two men are paid by the lot to look after all the sheep of all the people who have the right of grazing there. How will the half-holiday be regulated for the small farmer who takes charge of all the cattle belonging to his neighbour on the next farm? The herd is the most important worker on the land, and why should he be denied a half-holiday? A herd's work in many cases would be completed in three or four hours, but he cannot work except late or early. Take the lambing season. The herd would have to go out a couple of times during the night with his lantern to look after the ewes when they are lambing. When you have a few sick bullocks, will any man be able to diagnose their disease and does them? Then you see people like Senator O'Connell and others who know absolutely nothing about farming dictating and laying down the law about how the farmer is to do his work, and I am afraid that most of it is for political propaganda.

If the Senator keeps to his point in the amendment it would be much better.

If he is referring to me I will take him on at any time at farming.

We have, thanks be to God, very few herds in County Mayo, but I always understood that the herd's business was, in the main, to look after the stock of the man who employs him and he gives his spare time to the amenities he enjoys because of being a herd. I am in full sympathy with the idea of giving a half-holiday to agricultural labourers. We have also very few of them in Mayo. They generally live around the domicile of the employer but the herd usually lives several miles away from his boss, and if you take him into the category of agricultural labourers and give him a half-holiday, who is to look after the stock? He may not be married but even if he is, you could not ask his wife to look after his work. Before rejecting Senator Counihan's amendment, the House might give the matter more consideration.

I want to make a point by way of further explanation with regard to the situation confronting us. There is no necessity to get hot and bothered, as Senator Counihan did, but you cannot blame him. When you understand the problem he is trying to resolve, it is not easy to be patient with the people who chose to ignore it or have no sympathy with his views.

I should like Senator McCrea or some Senator on the other side of the House to tell me what you could do in the following case. There is an estate close to me of 2,000 acres and there is a herd there. I do not know how many sheep and cattle there are but that man is entirely employed looking after the live stock. He lives about a mile from the residence. Probably he alone, with perhaps one other, knows what live stock there is on the farm. No matter what Senators O'Connell or O'Reilly say, a labourer is entitled to walk off on his half-day and it does not matter if his employer wants to pay him double or treble. There is no use pretending, as Senator O'Reilly tried to pretend, that he can keep any employee working at the hay if he does not want to stay, because he can walk off. It may be said that he will not do it but that depends entirely on the relations between the farmer and man. Those relations will not be improved by the Bill but will, perhaps, be rather poisoned.

Take the instances I have mentioned and Senator Counihan has other instances. Suppose this man gets a half-holiday. You cannot try to control the payment as these people are paid on a different basis. They are under a kind of contract and receive a lump sum, not weekly payment. Who else on the farm knows how many sheep and cattle there are, how many yearlings, two-year-olds and three-year-olds to be looked after? Must he explain to another employee the sheep which must be looked after and watched on that afternoon? It would be much easier for him to stay on at work. You cannot make a provision in a Bill like this for such a situation. You are legislating in a vaccum. I do not think it is wise to try to formulate legislation to cover a case like that. It would be far better to define in clear and precise language what Senator Counihan described as a herd. In my opinion a herd is an employee on a farm whose sole duty practically is to look after the live stock. If that is the situation it could be covered after further consideration by a different type of amendment.

Mr. O'Farrell

Every argument advanced in favour of this amendment could be advanced with greater force to keep a herd on all night. If anything was to happen to the cattle on his half-day it would be far more likely to happen during the eight hours or if he was in bed. I am surprised that anyone should be anxious to exclude any section of farm workers from the Bill because if you exclude a labourer by calling him a herd or anything else, you are making it essential that a new Bill must immediately be brought in to extend to him the amenities which are granted to the other sections and there is no way of avoiding it.

I am glad that Senator Baxter mentioned the 2,000 acres, where one man and a dog have to go around minding all the cattle.

Mr. Burke

Sheep, he said.

Mr. O'Farrell

He said 2,000 acres.

Senator O'Farrell always likes to misinterpret.

Mr. O'Farrell

Senator Baxter said one man and 2,000 acres.

I said he was a herd. There are 50 men at work in the place but he looks after the live stock. This is a demonstration of how much these people know of the problem.

Mr. O'Farrell

He said that one man looked after the stock on 2,000 acres. On a previous occasion we had the case of the poor widows with no man to help them but now we have one man and 2,000 acres. I do not claim to have a farm but a lot of people talk about farming with no justification for their talk except that they own a farm. I have worked on farms but I have never worked on my own. There are people who own farms who have never worked on them and that does not give them a better right to talk about farming than I have.

This is nothing new in this Parliament in this generation or in this year. As far back as 1826, when an attempt was made to organise herds and other agricultural workers by Joseph Arch, one of the demands made was for a half-holiday every week. If it is practical at present in Northern Ireland and England and in practically every other country, it will not cause a collapse here. The exclusion of any section would cause trouble, in trying to interpret what the man's job is. We might as well let the Bill go through, covering all agricultural labourers, and not try to recast it by specifically excluding herds.

Another argument advanced was that a herd would leave a sick cow moaning or a sheep dying on the hill because he had this right to a half-day. It is not tied down to a specific day or hour and provision is also made in the Bill that he can work if he chooses. He has got the privilege or right to a half-day and it is rather reactionary on our part to try to exclude him. This is a depressed class, always despised and denied rights that even a domestic servant has.

Mr. Burke

I support Senator Counihan's amendment and think there is a case for putting the herd in a special position and excluding him from the provisions of this Bill. I know something about agricultural conditions and do not want to enforce a doctrinaire Bill on a community for whom it is not suited. We are primarily an agricultural country and it is important for us to see that we do nothing which would affect our major industry. People have talked about happenings in Britain and other places, but they are not agricultural countries. It is very important that the man in charge—Senator Baxter spoke of 50 men being under the herd —should be there at any time necessary. If he does not find that job suitable and if he is a good man, there will be many looking for him on his own conditions. I am glad that the father of the House has brought up this question and I hope we will be able to pass his amendment. He is a man who knows agriculture and what is good for agriculture and he is not making a doctrinaire approach to it.

We are getting away from facing up to the position of the person concerned. No one employed in agriculture has a closer relationship with his employer than the herd. He has certain concessions that no other employee has. Usually a house is provided and he has the grass of a certain number of stock as well. To suggest that the herd, above all other employees will, just in order to make it inconvenient for his employer, walk away from his employment at a critical stage, is to suggest something that would not happen in rural Ireland. Perhaps Senator Counihan could tell us the number of persons so employed as herds. Senator Baxter has laboured rather long on the position the herd occupies in the sole control of stock and thought that if he were absent for half-an-hour something extraordinary would happen. He tried to rectify that by saying the herd is only one of a number. In this country we are rapidly advancing to the stage when there will be no large farms and no herds, if we accept every statement being made at present.

We are asked to give the herd something he cannot on his own demand because of his close relationship with his employer, and we are going to victimise him over all the other employees if we exclude him. The vast majority of agricultural workers, and particularly herds, will accept payment in lieu of the holiday. I would sooner see this Bill introduced as a measure to give increased wages rather than as an excuse, saying: "You can give the half-day, or if you do not, you must increase the wages."

Hear, hear. It would have been better to have been straight about it.

I agree with Senator Baxter. It would.

The promoters of this Bill are not responsible for that particular condition. It was put in to meet objections raised by the opponents of the measure in principle. It is not alleged that there was a want of straightness. I do not like the references to "these people" who brought in the Bill. The Party responsible for the introduction of this measure are in the minority both here and in the Dáil. The principle of this Bill has been agreed to unanimously here and in the other House. Therefore, both Houses are responsible for it, and the less references to "these people" in the tone that has been used the better, and personal references should be left out also.

Most of those opposing this amendment are inclined to argue against the principle of the Bill. That has been settled and we are dealing now only with this individual. No attempt has been made to define him in a way which will remove all doubt as to the position he holds. The Bill refers to people employed under a contract of service. It seeks to exclude a large number of people occupying the position to which Senator Counihan refers, who may be employed miles away on an out farm. They are rare cases and we cannot legislate for rare cases. As Senator Hawkins said, there is provision for this already in Section 3. I think there is no justification for accepting this amendment.

This amendment concerns the exclusion of a particular class of worker from the provisions of the Bill. With regard to a statement made by Senator O'Connell, the fact that a Bill is passed unanimously in the Dáil on the Second Stage does mean that the Dáil unanimously assents to the principle, but here it has not got the same meaning. I think that should be made clear. The position which I have always adopted here, both in opposition and at present, is that unless you have some overwhelming objection you should not endeavour to defeat a Bill on Second Stage, because by doing so you are taking from yourself your own right to amend a Bill.

We come to the point when we are considering amendments and even though it is not right to say that everybody in the Seanad is in favour of the principle of this Bill, it is right to say that nobody can amend the Bill in such a way as to defeat the principle. That is what Senator O'Connell meant. I commend that to Senator Counihan. Senator Counihan may be against this Bill but the Bill cannot now be amended in such a way as to defeat the principle of the Bill. It is contrary to commonsense and it cannot be done. I am afraid that Senator Counihan and everybody else who does not like the Bill in itself will have to stop talking about the principle of it.

I am afraid of my life of farmers. Farmers talk about everything—education, industry, commerce—but the moment anybody else talks about farming he is at once told that he has no practical knowledge.

And quite wrongly told in some cases.

I think that Senator Counihan would be in a better position to understand the whole matter if he allowed other amendments which are coming on later to be discussed and, perhaps, accepted. He would then be in a better position to see where he stands with regard to herds. I agree with my superiors in knowledge in this matter that the herd is a very important person on a farm and if his work is so vital to the farmer, why should he be prevented from getting a half-day's pay or the half-holiday? I do not understand that at all. The effect of this amendment is that the unimportant worker gets a half-holiday or a half-day's pay but the herd gets neither a half-day nor a half-day's pay. If that is so, it seems to be a most unjust thing. This amendment, in its present form, would work out very badly for the very people for whom Senator Counihan seems to have admiration.

There is another point. There is no definition of a herd in this Bill. Some definition is required in the Bill. Senator Counihan referred to the case of a man who works in the west for more than one farmer. He would appear to me not to be an agricultural labourer but an independent contractor. Perhaps the word is too elaborate for a person of that type. Therefore, he is not what this Bill describes as an agricultural worker employed under a contract of service by a particular farmer.

I would suggest that if Senator Counihan puts the amendment now and carries it, as he might, it would certainly need amendment afterwards. If he puts it and loses it, then he loses his chance of doing anything more about the matter. It would be much better if, instead of excluding a particular type of worker from this Bill, we went on to discuss certain amendments, for example, amendment No. 10 by Senator Orpen, and certain amendments by Senator Hawkins. We can then go into this question of excluding a certain class of person. I would suggest that this amendment, as it stands, would not be workable and would have the immediate effect of preventing this particular member from getting either a half-holiday or a half-day's pay. I must assume that we have to work within the framework of the Bill as we have it.

I am not going to say very much on this Bill. I have confessed on previous occasions my ignorance of agricultural affairs. I was rather surprised at Senator Counihan taking us all to task because we dared interfere and speak on matters regarding agriculture. I suggest that, although I myself may be ignorant in relation to agricultural matters, I might know as much about agriculture as Senator Counihan knows about closed trades. That is quite possible.

The question I would like to have defined—I agree with Senator Hayes— is, what is a herd? From the way Senators have been speaking about herds, I think they have been talking about stewards rather than about herds. The type of man I know that looks after the stock is the type of man I feel who is one of the most depressed of agricultural workers and not the type of man who, long ago, I saw going round in leggings and hard hat riding a white horse. That is not the type I have in mind. The type I have in mind is the man who has to do drudgery on the farm.

The principle of the Bill has been spoken against. I have realised for a long time that, when a man talks about something being against his principle, he generally means something is against his interests. You know the story of the man who, on principle, would not pay the interest and it was against his interest to pay the principal. I believe that Senator Counihan would be well advised to take Senator Hayes' advice that if this amendment is passed we will then want a definition of what is a herd.

He is defined in the amendment as a worker whose principal work on the farm is the care and management of the stock. If you read the amendment——

I have read the amendment. There are varied and different types of people minding stock and the type of people minding stock about whom Senator Counihan spoke might be on a different plane and in a different category to the men on other farms. They might be different people altogether. I am certainly satisfied that some definition of the word "herd" is required.

I think the point made by Senator Hawkins is one that should commend itself to us. I oppose the principle of pay in lieu of a holiday. I appreciate that there are difficulties in agricultural matters which are not found in industrial affairs and that provisions have to be made for a man taking money in lieu of a holiday. I suggest that it is most unfair to say that because a herd is a herd he should not get compensation if he has to work during his half-holiday. Every reform creates problems and it is a question of trying to meet these problems. I want to say that there is co-operation between the farmers and the workers which is not found generally in industrial affairs. I believe that the farm labourer is prepared to co-operate to the fullest extent with the farmer. The difficulties that are seen in this revolutionary idea of a half-holiday for workers can be overcome, and in another 12 months, when the thing is working, we will all wonder what we were talking about.

I oppose this amendment, because I consider it unfair to single out a class of worker on a farm, especially, as Senator Hawkins said, as the nature of his employment places him in an awkward position when it comes to pressing for a betterment of his conditions. The Bill, as it stands, seems to me to have sufficient flexibility to permit a herd or any other worker to remain at work when circumstances require that he should do so. As I have said before, the prosperity of the farm is as much the concern of the worker, be he herd or any other class of worker, as it is of the farmer himself.

Captain Orpen

I am a little confused with regard to this matter of exactly what is a herd and my interpretation of a herd seems to differ from that of others; but as in this Bill we are trying to equate to some extent, conditions on the farm with those of the town worker, the parallel would seem to me to be that the herd is not an agricultural worker as much as a salaried official because, in my experience, the herd is a paid charge-hand. He has no hours; he arranges his own hours of work according to the work. He is a completely free individual and therefore is not like the ordinary agricultural worker or any other worker who works to time. If that is so—and that is the practice in certain counties where there are a few of these real herds who are responsible for a large number of animals—it seems to me that we are trying to bring within the ambit of this Bill a number of men who really do not fit into the scheme of the Bill.

I take it that the object of the Bill is to provide a relief from the laborious work of the farm, the manual work that goes on from morning to night six days a week. That is not the life of a herd at all. He works very hard occasionally, and his responsibility undoubtedly extends over the 24 hours, but I maintain that, strictly speaking, the true herd does not fit into the definition of an agricultural worker at all. He is a specialist—you may call him a charge hand—and a salaried man rather than an ordinary agricultural worker. I quite agree that we possibly should proceed to discuss other amendments, as Senator Hayes suggested, but I want to say that I do not feel convinced by the arguments in favour of a herd falling within the ambit of this Bill.

Mr. O'Farrell

It was said long ago that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and this amendment stinks in my nostrils. The Bill deals with agricultural workers, and it defines what an agriculture worker is. It defines an agricultural worker as a person employed whose work is or includes work in agriculture, and agriculture is defined as including dairy farming and the use of land for grazing, meadow or pasture land, and so on. Therefore, a man herding cattle on a mountainside, a man looking after live stock for a farmer, is engaged in agricultural work, and is an agricultural worker as defined by this Bill. Any attempt to take any agricultural workers out from under this Bill and to deprive them of benefits is an unfair attempt.

It may not be Senator Counihan's or Senator Baxter's desire that any one section of agricultural workers should be worse treated than the others, but, if the amendment were passed, this section of workers, who are undefinable and undefined, would be worse treated. Any farmer who wanted to say that his man was mainly engaged in looking after live stock would have a perpetual cause of conflict with his employees. He could say: "You are looking after the cows; you are looking after the feeding of the pigs; and you are looking after the horses. You are mainly engaged with live stock," but still they would all be agricultural workers and you would be picking out a few for concessions, whether good or bad—at least the Bill proposes to give certain rights —and deliberately excluding others. Since the Bill is meant to apply to all agricultural workers anything which attempts to segregate them, anything which attempts to make a difference between them, and to say that one man shall get the benefit of this legislation and another shall not, will only make for ill-will between the farmer and his employees.

I have heard it said, when it suited people to say it, that there never was anywhere more harmony than there is between the farmer and his employees, and the same people stand up almost the next day and argue that there never was such bitter animosity, such hatred and such irreconcilable differences as there are between the farmer and his men, and that, once you give a man a right, he will enforce it against the farmer at whatever consequence to the live stock or the crops. They do not put it as bluntly as that, but that is what it means. We are told that he will walk out and leave the cattle to die in the field; we are told that he will walk out and leave the sheep neglected on the mountainside and the cattle unmilked in the byre. I do not believe that any agricultural worker has such antagonism for his employer as that, whether he be a herd or an ordinary agricultural worker engaged in the routine work of a farm. The farmer and his man will maintain a good relationship and, giving him the right, without compelling him to enforce that right, is not going to injure the farmer, but taking that right from any section of agricultural workers is going to make trouble and put this House to the indignity of having to swallow its own amendments by and by when another Bill is brought in to reverse whatever adverse decision you might be able to secure here to-day.

I know nothing about farming, but I do know something about the difficulties in enforcing half-holiday, early closing and other legislation of which I have been in favour and in which I have been interested for many years. That is the only reason I intervene in this discussion. I agree substantially with what Senator Hawkins and Senator Hayes also said, but it seems to me that a difficulty may arise which is not dealt with in the Bill and which, in the interests both of the promoters and of the farmers, should be dealt with on Report Stage.

It would appear from the discussion —and I am depending on what has been said in the discussion—that there are certain persons employed to do a particular job but not fixed by hours. Where a man has to do a job and there are no fixed hours, you cannot provide for four hours off as provided in the Bill. Instead of exempting any particular class of persons, for the smooth working of the Bill and to avoid friction, it would be wise so to arrange that persons whose terms of contract provide for specific services and who fix their own hours shall not come within the Bill. That would probably meet the case of a certain type as suggested here. It would be a practical way of dealing with it; it would not cut across the principle of the Bill; and it would help to get the Bill enforced. Quite obviously, if you provide for four hours off in a 52 or 48-hour week, if a man has no number of hours fixed as part of his contract, there is no way of providing four hours out of it and therefore it is unworkable. In the interests of the Bill, it would be well if Senator Counihan would withdraw his amendment and let some of us get together and see what we can do to arrive at a satisfactory solution of this problem.

It is suggested that the definition of the word "herd" will cause confusion. I thought I made it plain enough for any man to understand, even in a court of law. I said that a herd is a man whose principal work on the farm is the care and management of live stock. I should have thought that that definition would meet even the Professor.

Yes, but the trouble is would it meet the lawyers?

Senator O'Farrell threatens that if this Bill does not pass as it stands a new Bill will be introduced. He must have hopes that Labour will be the next Government.

The Senator should deal with the amendment.

If I understood Senator O'Farrell correctly, Labour are the Government.

Senator M. Hayes has suggested that I should withdraw this amendment and that I will have an opportunity of reintroducing it on the Report Stage. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment on condition that I can reintroduce it on the Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."

I wonder if those who are sponsoring the Bill would explain the meaning of the word "contract" in this and in subsequent sections.

Mr. O'Farrell

I will explain it.

There is no need for me or for anybody in this House to define what is meant by "contract of service". I understand that in legal practice the term "contract of service" is very well understood. If it came to a question of the courts I think there would be no doubt whatsoever as to the definition of that term.

Is it something that we are all supposed to understand and yet do not understand?

Take for example a person who is thinning beet by contract. Is the "contract" referred to here? I assume not. The harvesting and the thinning of beet by contract is very common in the beet growing districts.

Mr. O'Farrell

My interpretation of Section 1 is that it is a wage contract. Section 2 says that the contract shall be for a period of not less than one week. Everybody who makes an arrangement with an employer for work makes a contract as to hours and wages. I think you must take "contract" in that loose definition. In Section 2 it is confined to people where the contract is for a period of not less than one week. Whether that would cover the thinning of beet or not I do not know.

I am still not satisfied with the explanation of "contract of service". Senator O'Callaghan has mentioned a contract in relation to the thinning of beet. Would a farmer who enters into a contract with some man to thin beet, and who employs other people to carry out that work of thinning beet, be covered by the definition? I think everybody will readily agree that that is not what is meant by the term "contract of service" in this Bill. Senator Dr. O'Connell says that the term is so well understood by everybody that there is no need to define it. It may be that it is already defined in the Agricultural Wages Act. If that is so, it should be stated in this Bill now that the term "contract of service" means what it is defined as in that particular Act. So far as this Bill is concerned the term is most ambiguous. An amendment might be needed on the Report Stage in order to clarify the position. It may be that it is impossible to define it.

I understand that, in relation to another Bill, the question of a fair price was something that everybody understood but that nobody could define. Again, it would seem that people had their own definition of "herd" but that nobody could write a definition of the word. I submit that there should be a definition of the expression "contract of service" in order to avoid misunderstanding.

Senator O'Callaghan's question can be answered as follows. The type of contract into which a farmer enters in connection with ploughing or the carrying out of other particular work does not come within the provisions of this Bill because that is for the carrying out of a particular type of work. It is usual in the country to enter into a contract for the threshing of wheat——

Or the thinning of beet.

An independent contract.

This Bill applies only where there is agreement to pay a weekly or a monthly wage.

Are we to take it that none of the sponsors of this Bill will offer to define the term?

Has Senator Hawkins not just done so?

He has not.

Neither Senator Hawkins nor I can give an authoritative definition. The best we can do is to explain what we understand by the term "contract". I might give an explanation to Senator O'Reilly which would satisfy him, but, if the question came up in a court of law my explanation or the explanation of Senator Hawkins might not be worth anything at all. The obvious commonsense explanation is that given by Senator Hawkins.

It would be well for this House to understand the meaning of the term. I do not know what it means. In the beet-growing districts the thinning of beet is done by contract and the harvesting of beet is done by contract. Is that the type of contract mentioned in this section or is it not?

Suppose a farmer brings in a man to thresh his corn; if he is engaged for two, three or four days it could not be suggested that the owner of the threshing mill should get a half-day.

I think I might give a case which would make the matter clearer. It is quite a common practice for small farmers with a reasonable amount of tillage to arrange to pay a certain sum to a labourer to do a particular piece of work, and he will start that piece of work in the morning and go on until sundown just to get that work done. Where a contract of that sort is entered into the half-day does not apply. That is what Senator O'Callaghan was puzzled about.

It is a contract of service.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.

I move amendment No. 4:—

In sub-section (1), line 23, before the word "employed" to insert the word "permanently," and in lines 23 and 24 to delete the words "on a contract for a period of not less than one week."

I am sure that the purpose of this amendment is very clear. It excludes from the Bill all except permanent employees on a farm. What I dislike about the section is that if I take on a man temporarily, before he is there a week at all he must get a half-day. I think that is very undesirable, and its net effect will be that fewer people will be employed. I do not want to go back over the argument about the original intention of the promoters of the Bill or the results which will accrue from the form which the Bill has now taken. I know that it can be argued against my amendment that if it be accepted, temporary employees will be paid less per week. I am sure that Senator O'Callaghan and others who are concerned with finding labour will agree that the fact is that men are just not available, and can practically fix their own price.

I am quite satisfied that very few agricultural workers work for the minimum wage—I do not know of any. Even the temporary employee is not going to work for the minimum agricultural wage. The net result of the Bill will be that men will be paid more; they will not take a holiday. That is what one would desire, but this is not the way to do it; it is a left-handed way of doing a thing that should be tackled from a different angle altogether.

As an employer, I dislike being put in the position that if I employ a man for only two days he must get a half-day. My idea is that it should not be Saturday. It is a very unsatisfactory situation that an employer must make this concession to a man he has taken on for a short time, and employers will hesitate about taking on this type of person. It is something which should be dispensed with. Where men are permanently employed the basis is entirely different. I put down the amendment because I wanted to state my point of view.

In this amendment we are up against the same difficulty with which we were faced on the last— the question of definition. When is a man permanently employed? Senator Baxter will say, and rightly so: "We all know when a man is permanently employed", but that is not sufficient. An employer could, if he wished, defeat the object of the Bill by never employing a man permanently in the sense that Senator Baxter means by permanence. He could employ a man for a few months and then knock him of and employ somebody else. What is meant exactly by "permanently"? That is my difficulty. I can quite see that all sorts of trouble would result if the amendment were accepted.

I was rather amused to hear Senator O'Connell questioning the meaning of the word "permanently". It is funny that he used the very same argument in favour of leaving the wording "contract of employment" as it was. I agree that there is something in this point of view. Just as "contract of employment" should be clearly defined, so should "permanently" be clearly defined. I quite sympathise with the viewpoint which I think is behind Senator Baxter's amendment, but he should have specified that "permanently" meant within the meaning of the Act 50 days, 100 days or 200 days as he thought fit. It was funny to hear Senator O'Connell using this argument in favour of different points of view in these two matters.

Senator Baxter could have made a better case if his amendment catered for the casual employee. Quite a number of persons have been employed on the land for a long period of years and have become part and parcel of the family. When their services are not such as might be expected from young and active people they are kept on because of their past associations with the family. We are now legislating to give such persons a half-holiday, as well as an annual holiday, or in lieu of that increased pay, with the result that such persons are in a more unfavourable position than they were up to this because it is quite possible that the employer might consider that a man who had given faithful service over the years had now reached a stage when he could not do the work of a young and active person, and now that a half-day was being forced upon him the best thing he could do would be to take on a younger person. Senator Baxter could have made a case that the half-day should apply to permanent employees but not to persons taken on from time to time at seasonal work. If we are to encourage young people in rural districts to accept employment from farmers, we must give them the same facilities as are given to workers for Bord na Móna or for a local authority.

Regarding the definition of "permanently", farmers who fill up forms regarding farm employment in order to get relief from rates have to define the number of persons employed.

It might not be the same person.

Wait a moment. We have to give the number of permanent employees. Even if I have a man for 240 days, if he is not with me for the full year I am not entitled to obtain remission of rates on his account. That is my interpretation of "permanently" employed and I hope Senator O'Connell accepts it. Senator Hawkins said I could have made a better case on behalf of those in permanent employment who because of this may be dropped. Some of the people I am thinking of are the sons of neighbouring farmers. They do not want to be permanently employed. They have work to do on their own farms but can take a week off and go to a neighbour. That takes place all over the country. I believe these people are paid more than the standard rate of wages and that the question of a half-day does not, and should not, enter into it, and they should not come under this legislation at all.

On the question of definition, I am sorry I have to correct Senator Baxter. I am a farmer myself and employ agricultural labourers and every January I get the form to which Senator Baxter refers. It asks me to state the number of men employed continuously during the 12 months ended the 31st December—not necessarily permanently, as we could get the relief if we employed a different man every week, so long as there was no interval of unemployment.

The Senator knows that that does not happen.

It could happen. I feel that this form is of no benefit to Senator Baxter's argument and does not help to define what "permanent" means.

Senator O'Connell's definition is amusing.

I did not define it.

The Senator disagreed with Senator Baxter. A farmer would have a nice job procuring the unemployment insurance card numbers every week, where he employed a man as in the case Senator O'Connell makes. I think Senator Baxter's motion should be accepted. This is only one instance where the Bill will create the utmost confusion. Take the case of men employed for a few days threshing or, as Senator O'Callaghan pointed out, the beet thinners and those employed under contract. Those will come under the scheme and must get the half-day, according to the Bill as it stands at presents. This is the result of the Labour Party trying to legislate for agriculture, when they know nothing about it.

Senator Baxter's attempted explanation cannot be accepted on this. In the sending of information to the county council, in order to get a rebate for agricultural labourers, it is for past service, which would mean that before the labourer could get a holiday he must be at least 12 months with that particular farmer. I do not think that could be accepted. If we accept the principle, we must ensure that it will apply justly all round.

Senator Counihan referred again to the points raised by Senator O'Callaghan: It is quite clear that where work is undertaken by a contractor this Bill does not apply, no more than it would if an ordinary person gave a contract to a builder to erect a house. It would not be that person's responsibility to ensure that the workers got a holiday: it would be the contractor's duty to do that.

If this amendment is accepted and the word "permanent" left in, too many abuses would take place. In fact, the whole purpose of the Bill could be defeated. Some farmers would endeavour to arrange that they would never have a permanent employee. We must remember that legislation is for all farmers and not for the good farmers only.

The amendment is one which could not be accepted. The majority of farm labourers would be cut out from the benefits of the Bill. As it stands, if a man is employed for a week he is entitled to a half-day. There is no use in Senator Counihan telling us we should not talk about this as we know nothing about it: we know probably as much about agriculture as he knows about closed trades.

No one is disputing anyone's right to express his views on this measure. We have a right to discuss everything that comes along. I assure Senator Miss Davidson that there is nothing further from our minds than to introduce something which would cause difficulty. There may be some farmers who would attempt to do what she suggests, but they are not representative of the farming community. If that were the way the farmers acted, it would be a dark day for agriculture. As far as I am concerned, and my neighbours too, the men are working for years and years. To suggest that there are farmers who would try to play ducks and drakes with this measure or act in such a way that they would have a different employee every week so as to evade this half-holiday legislation, is to suggest something completely unrepresentative of the facts about Irish agriculture. If that were tried once or twice, it would not be tried a third time, as that farmer would not have any men the next week. I have not changed my point of view. It does not seem that the House is with me, but it is my view still.

I do not think the word "permanently" is one which could be construed in a court and which could have a practical meaning. If there is to be a half-holiday for agricultural workers, for people employed under contract of service to work a specific number of hours per day, I do not see why a person who is employed casually for a week or a fortnight should not get his half-holiday, if there is going to be one at all, as well as a person employed over a period of 12 months. If it is going to be worked at all, let it be worked all round. I think Senator Baxter's object could only be achieved by differentiating between people who are employed for a longer period. I think it is very invidious and difficult to create two different classes of labourers, one who is entitled to a half-holiday and the other who is not. Again, when we come to the other amendment here, we will find we are nearer to a solution of the problem than by this particular type of amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 5:—

In sub-section (1), line 24, to delete all words after the word "half-holiday" and substitute therefor "of four consecutive hours, exclusive of meal hour, on a day agreed on by worker and employer in respect of each week so worked".

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Would the Senator postpone the debate on the principle of his amendment (the days agreed upon by worker and employer) as it would anticipate the debate on amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12?

You mean then to hold over this?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Yes, that particular portion of it.

I am quite satisfied.

Would you read that again, please?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

There are two principles in this amendment (1) to make it clear that the four hours are consecutive and exclude mealtime, and (2) to have the days agreed upon by worker and employer. The Senator should be asked to postpone the debate on the second principle, as it would anticipate the debate on amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12.

You wish me to deal with the question of the four consecutive hours?

Could we come back to the whole matter of that amendment again? I think it would include amendment No. 10, Senator Orpen's amendment. We could come back again, by agreement?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Yes.

We will come back for the whole of it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 6:—

In sub-section (2), line 30, after the word "rate" to add the words "in addition to his ordinary weekly wages."

That is really a drafting amendment. It is only inserted for the sake of clarity. I do not think there is any difficulty about that.

Captain Orpen

May I say on this amendment that there is no definition under the Wages Act of ordinary weekly wages? Would it not be advisable to use the phraseology of the Agricultural Wages Act, which is a little more complicated but at least it is a fixed thing. The word "wages" is defined in the Agricultural Workers (Holidays) Bill, 1949. It does not use the words "ordinary wage" but it uses some phrase meaning the average weekly earnings for that individual worker. I will get it for the House.

I suggest that the sub-section is definite—"not less than the equivalent of four hours' pay." That would be the wage rate a man would be paid for the week.

The Senators might read: "in respect of such half-holiday a sum not less than the equivalent of four hours' pay." That might be read very narrowly to mean he would get no extra payment. That was my purpose in putting in the amendment.

I think it is necessary.

Without that it might mean he would get no extra payment. Assuming that the commonsense meaning is accepted, I would be quite willing to withdraw this and put in the legal phraseology if it covers the same point.

I take it that the Senator is withdrawing it and bringing it up again on the Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 7:—

In sub-section (3) to delete all words following the word "him" in line 34 and insert "wages in respect of that half-holiday as provided by the foregoing sub-section".

It is just a matter of making some slight alteration in sub-section (3). It then reads:—

"Where a worker instead of taking the half-holiday which he is to be allowed under this section, remains at work with his employer's consent, the employer shall be deemed to have allowed the half-holiday to the worker if he pays him wages in respect of that half-holiday as provided by the foregoing sub-section."

As far as my information goes, a worker who forgoes a half-holiday and who is not paid wages in lieu of it is not in a position to recover or prosecute. If the word "remuneration" is left in, he can prosecute or recover wages or proscture in respect of remuneration. This particularly refers to people who are working under the system of contract. The question of contract has been discussed here to-day for some time and there seems to be some foggy mix-up as to what it means. In several parts of the country it has been the custom to employ workers on a contract basis for one, two or six months, or whatever it might be. If the word "wages" were included, it would bring it under the Agricultural Wages Board, and then the worker would be in a position to recover in cases where wages were withheld.

I see no necessity for the amendment. I think the section is explicit enough. It says:

"... the employer shall be deemed to have allowed the half-holiday to the worker if he pays him in addition to wages the half-holiday remuneration provided by the foregoing sub-section."

I do not think so. I have cited the case of a person working on a contract basis. Such a person has no defined hours and remuneration may mean that the employer gives him three or four hours on Sunday or tells him on Monday, if it is raining, that he can go home and come back at 2 o'clock. I ask the Seanad to accept the substitution of "wages" for "remuneration". It is not going to do any harm, if it is not going to do any good.

It is "remuneration provided by the foregoing sub-section," which says that it must be the equivalent of four hours' pay at the ordinary wage rate.

If an employer tells a person working on contract that he will give him four hours' remuneration on a Sunday and claims that as part of his wages, would the Senator consider it fair?

That would defeat the whole purpose of the Bill.

That is why I ask the Seanad to accept this slight alteration. It will not make any difference to the Bill and, as I say, if it does not do any good, it will not do any harm.

I agree with Senator Colgan. I do not see much point in the amendment and I suggest that we should adopt the procedure we have adopted in relation to other amendments, of having them looked into. Senator McCrea made a reference to contracts and I think the introduction of this word has given rise to a lot of confusion. I think we should be quite clear that we are legislating only for persons who give their services for wages, weekly, fortnightly or monthly, and not for persons who enter into a contract to do a type of work over a particular period. You could have the case of a farmer employing a contractor under the farm improvements scheme. These people could be regarded as being, in a sense, agricultural workers, but the farmer would not be compelled by this legislation to accept the responsibility of seeing that persons employed by the contractor to do the particular work or any other job got a half-holiday. The best thing to do is to have it looked into before Report Stage.

I am perfectly clear with regard to the points raised by Senator Hawkins, but he is evidently not clear with regard to the point I am making. There are such things as hiring fairs—we do not have such fairs in my county, where men are engaged on a weekly basis, but I understand that it is the practice in the northern counties and in some of the southern counties—at which men are employed on a basis of six or 12 months. These are the people I am referring to.

Surely Senator McCrea should know that—whether by verbal contract or tacit understanding —an arrangement is made between a farmer and an agricultural workers that the worker will work for the farmer over a particular period of, say, six months. I do not think the Senator need have any fears about such an arrangement at a hiring fair, because any such contract so entered into, whether verbally, by tacit understanding or even written, is quite void if it clashes with the terms of the legislation which sets down the wages and conditions of agricultural workers and the responsibilities of agricultural employers to them.

While the Senator has made a case for the general principle of the Bill, he is really trying to defeat that principle, because what he has in mind is that contracts of employment can be entered into at hiring fairs, or even at some place in County Wicklow, after Mass, by which a farmer will employ a worker for six months on the basis of a contract, which, so far as wages and conditions are concerned, may not be at all in conformity with the agricultural wages prescribed and may not fulfil the other statutory requirements laid down. As I say, if these contracts are not in conformity with these statutory requirements, they are void, and, that being so, I do not think there is any case at all for the change proposed.

I suggest to Senator McCrea that he should not press this amendment, but should look into it further, because I am not at all satisfied that he may not defeat his whole purpose. He is seeking to remove, for some reason which he has not made clear, the words "in addition to wages" and I think there might be a legal doubt created by doing so. It is extremely important from his point of view to make it clear that whatever is paid should be in addition to wages and I suggest that he leave the section as it stands. He is trying to get over a difficulty which is not quite clear to me with regards to certain types of employment, but I do not think he does it by this amendment and there is a danger that he may defeat his purpose.

I am prepared to leave it over until Report Stage, and have it further examined.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 8:—

In sub-section (4), line 41, to delete all words after the word "exceeding" and substitute the words "five pounds, together with payment to the worker of the half-holiday remuneration accruing under sub-section (2) to such worker provided that such payment shall not exceed the total of the half-holiday remuneration over a period of two months".

The sub-section provides:—

If an agricultural employer fails to allow a half-holiday to an agricultural worker or pay him in respect of a half-holiday in accordance with this section he shall be guilty of an offence under this subsection and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding £20.

I consider that £20 is too heavy a penalty to inflict for what one might term a "pass-over" mistake. I have already drawn the attention of the House to the good relations existing between the farmer and his employee, and we are dealing here with workers who may have grown up with the family, who probably are not alone agricultural workers but, to a great extent, have nursed every member of the family. There might be cases in which such a worker would not require or would not take a half-holiday. A position might arise in which the relations between that worker and the family were not so good and in which the employment was terminated at the end of a certain number of months or years. The position then would be that, while that employee, by his own wish, declined to assert the right we are giving him to a half-holiday, or to payment in lieu thereof, he, having left the farmer's employment, could have him fined £20. There is another flaw that I see in the sub-section and my object is to reduce the amount of the fine to £5. I am not so happy even about the £5, but when we accept that it is an offence for an employer not to comply with the provisions of this Bill, while we might regard £20 as extreme, I think £5 would meet the case.

In the Bill as it stands, no provision is made where by a worker may recoup money which he should have been given when he did not take the half-holiday. Here again I am confining the sum of money for which he is in a position to sue this employer to two months: probably eight weeks would be better. Where an employee has failed to exercise his right over eight, ten or 12 months, or a longer period, it would be most unfair that he should be in a position to sue his employer for a sum covering the full length of that period. This is a reasonable amendment and one which would probably improve the Bill. It would remove the impediment that might be there. It can quite easily be understood that a farmer might overlook the passage of this measure and that his worker might not be interested in getting the half-holiday. Attention would have to be given to such a set of circumstances. I suppose that there will be inspectors just as there are inspectors in connection with the enforcement of other measures. If a long period had elapsed, I think it would be most unfair on the employer. For that reason, I think we should treat both parties as lightly as possible and induce the farmer and the worker to avail of whatever benefits may be in this Bill. I think that that would be much better than the imposition of big penalties, thereby creating bad feeling between the employer and the worker.

The following two amendments (No. 9 and No. 14) stand in my name and I should like to know if I may refer to them on the discussion of this amendment:—

"In sub-section (4), line 41, to delete all words after the word ‘exceeding' and substitute therefor ‘the total of wages for eight weekly half-holidays'."

"To add a new sub-section as follows:—

(5) It shall not be lawful for a worker to claim for arrears of half-holiday wages a greater amount than the total of wages for eight such half-holidays, but wages due for half-holidays subsequent to date of claim shall be legally due."

I think we should discuss the amendment moved by Senator Hawkins and, on the result of that discussion, we can decide what to do with these two amendments. The question of arrears of extra wages can be discussed as the general question. Senator Hawkins referred to very heavy penalties. If a penalty of £5, £10, £15 or £20 is provided for in the Bill it does not mean that the court will always exact the maximum penalty. I am certain that the tendency will be in the other direction. A farmer who has deprived his worker of the half-holiday over a long period, and who is eventually brought to court, may be fined only, say, 2/6 or 5/- or something like that. I cannot understand why Senator Hawkins insists that the arrears of extra pay due to the worker will be confined to a two months' period. I am sure that Senator Hawkins will agree that there are many workmen who do not know their rights in this matter and who will not always wish to exercise them. They may be the odd men and not all the workers may be like them. However, here and there you will find a man who, perhaps, may not know anything about his rights and who will be willing to accept whatever his employer tells him. I cannot agree to the suggestion in this amendment or in the other amendments that the amount which the worker will be entitled to recover in respect of the extra wages which have been withheld shall be limited to a period of two months or eight weeks or any other period. I strongly oppose that part of the amendment.

Senator McCrea spoke about another form of contract which Senator O'Reilly did not understand. No doubt arrangements are made in some parts of the country whereby a man may be employed for six months, say, and agrees to accept a certain rate during that period. During all that time it is possible that the man would be denied his half-holiday. In such circumstances the man would only be able to recover eight weeks of the remuneration due. I do not think it is a reasonable amendment.

I have been given permission to refer, on this amendment, to two amendments in my name on the Order Paper—amendments Nos. 9 and 14. We are told that agricultural labourers are so scarce that they are almost impossible to get. From personal experience I know that if an agricultural employee is available, farmers will be glad to get him at any time. For that reason, the agricultural worker has a particular bargaining power at present, and there is no bother about his getting work. The question of any hindrance to his getting work does not, therefore, arise. I submit that the matter of the £20 fine, if he does not get his weekly half-holiday, is not necessary. If he does not get the half-holiday he can very easily change to another employer, and sue his previous employer in respect of the holidays which he did not get. It will be found that there will not be many cases of men not getting a weekly half-holiday over a long period, and if such a case should arise I submit that the employee is as guilty as the employer. On that account, the employee should suffer equally with the employer. That is the reason why I fixed on the period of eight weeks. I considered that if an employee works eight weeks and does not get a half-holiday during that time, he might be regarded as a party to the offence equally with the employer. I agree with Senator Hawkins that when there is to be a punishment for the employer there should always, in that particular way, be a punishment for the employee. I think eight weeks is a reasonable period. I stipulated that it shall not be lawful for a worker to claim for arrears of half-holiday wages a greater amount than the total of wages for eight such half-holidays, but that wages due for half-holidays subsequent to date of claim shall be legally due. I think that that was reasonable, and at the same time, I have allowed that if he continues to work for the employer any wages which may be due for half-holidays subsequent to the date of claim shall be legally due.

Senator Dr. O'Connell did not advert to the fact that the agricultural worker has not, in the Bill as it stands, any method of suing for wages not paid at all.

We have provided for that in amendment No. 15.

When Senator Hawkins was drafting his amendment he was not aware of the drafting of amendment No. 15. His amendment and my amendment, therefore, gave to the employee an opportunity of suing for wages. On many occasions I have read in the Press of an employee of a farmer suing for wages over seven years. The person suing might be a relative of the farmer or just some person who was hanging on and working with him for years. Maybe the old employer had died or may be the employer had had a row with this particular worker and had dispensed with his services. Then this employee sued for perhaps three or four years' wages due. That is a deplorable state of affairs. One of the reasons why I put down this amendment was to ensure that if an employee was so careless of his rights as to forfeit his half-day over a long period he should not be able to claim for more than the number of weeks I have stated.

In my opinion, these amendments are absolutely necessary if this Bill is to be effective at all and if it is not to be injurious both to the people it is designed to benefit and to the other side, the employers.

Senator O'Connell says that in many cases workers do not know their rights. If you were to go down the country at the present time to discuss the Bill with the workers I think you would probably find that Senator O'Connell was right and that many workers did not know what their rights were under this proposed legislation for the simple reason, as I said on the Second Stage, that there was not really any demand for this legislation from the agricultural workers of the country. However, once the Bill becomes law I cannot see that a situation will exist different from that which has always existed as far as legislation is concerned.

If any legislation is passed in this and the other House to benefit any particular section of the community and if any member of the Oireachtas is a little bit vague as to what is meant by that legislation, as we often are, the best thing he could do would be to go down the country and walk as far as he can up a mountainy boreen and the further he goes the more information he will get as long as it affects the people there directly and more power to them. It is a very desirable state of affairs and there is no use in shutting one's eyes to it and saying that the workers of the country will not know their rights. Of course they will know their rights and of course they will insist upon them.

I can see a lot of trouble coming from the Bill unless it is amended before passing its final stages to see that certain things will be provided for. We have had a discussion on the position of the herd and the same situation to a great extent could occur in connection with stud grooms or men employed on stud farms in the country. A good many of those men are employed on a seasonal basis plus their grooms' fees. If it is a man's half-day and he knows that a couple of mares are coming into the stud farm that afternoon he would need to be a bigger fool than any man in that position I know if he walks out. If he stays in he will collect a couple of guineas and has a chance of his wages as well. If he stays without consulting the owner of the farm who might be able to look after the work himself he will, having collected his stud groom's fees, come to the end of the season when he will have spent all his money as people in much more important positions do. He goes to the owner and says: "What are you going to do about this? After all I was entitled to half-holidays all the year and you did not give me a half-holiday." What constitutes an offence on the part of the owner of a stud farm or any other farm? Does he have to take the man by the collar, put him outside the gate, lock the gate and bolt it behind him? Even if he did that the man could say: "I was not in the yard but I was up the fields looking after cattle." Or: "A sheep got caught in some briars and I had to spend the evening getting it out and I had only left it when I met a sheep having lambs and I had to stay with her." You have to be definite.

The reduction of the fine from £20 to £5 is only just in my opinion for the simple reason that if a man wants to prove that he was denied—if you like to word it thus—his half-holiday on a particular day the boss cannot prove that he did not order him out of the place; because he did not put him outside the gate and lock the gate after him he must pay £20. It is an exorbitant fine and would, as Senator Hawkins said, only make for bad feeling.

In the same way the Bill as it stands makes no provision for the workers. While I do not want to fish for any compliments from any section on this matter, I would say that it will make for better feeling and a better working of the Bill if a provision is made whereby workers can claim for no longer a period than eight weeks as Senator Loughman states. If that is done it will help in a lot of ways. First of all it will compensate the worker for such grievances as he may have. On the other hand—which to my mind is also for the benefit of both parties— it will ensure that no worker will continue to miss his half-holiday for an indefinite period. The reason I think that section of Senators Hawkins's and Loughman's amendments not only desirable but necessary is that if a worker is employed by a farmer and if through his own fault he misses his half-holiday or fails to insist on getting it for three or four weeks it is not so bad. If he allows that position to continue for a longer period and carries on for 12 months and then falls out with the farmer and says: "I have been working on my half-holidays for a full 12 months and you will have to pay me now" it will be a very serious problem for the ordinary working farmer. In the interest of both parties, therefore, these amendments are very desirable.

On every stage of the Bill attempts have been made, I can see and I know, to push people to either side. Most of the stud farms are situated in Kildare and I can see a very good reason why the battle-scarred Vice-Premier of the Republic should legislate for one section only of the workers of his own constituency. I am here representing the Horse Owners and Bloodstock Breeders' Association and I appeal to the House to accept those amendments. They will be in the interest of both parties and will make for better feeling.

We are making provision for the man who works on a couple of his half-days; he will be paid for eight of them. If he goes on indefinitely, deliberately or otherwise, he will know that he will not be paid and he will quit after eight weeks. I would strongly appeal that the amendment be accepted, and I can assure the House that nobody will be sorry afterwards.

The question of the fine would not mean very much in practice probably because the amount of the fine will be decided by the court. While the maximum may be £20 a man might be fined £2 or 5/-. I am much more opposed to the second part of the amendment, because I think it entirely wrong that we should enact legislation which denies a man the right to recover what is properly due to him.

Improperly due to him.

It is properly due to him. Without referring to stud farms or anything else it is suggested in the amendments that the employee can recover nothing. No matter how much would be due to him he can only recover to the extent of eight weeks. We have in our legal enactments the Statute of Limitations. Under it one can go back six years. The income-tax people, even though they have not reminded you that the amount is due, can collect for a greater number of years.

There is no limit. It may be 66.

And if you have overpaid you cannot get it back, if there is a mistake.

They will get it, anyway. It is suggested that if a man does not draw the half-holiday pay for a number of weeks, that may be done deliberately. The farmer knows what the result will be, that the labourer will look for it. The farmer is equally responsible for allowing it to accumulate. He should not be permitted to allow the worker to fail to exercise his right, in the hope that no matter how long it goes on he will be responsible in the end only for eight weeks' payment. It would be wrong to put into this measure anything which would interfere with the right of a man to recover what is lawfully due to him and what should have been paid regularly to him.

Take the question of stamping an insurance card. Sometimes an employee will not bother about it and perhaps a farm labourer may not even know his obligations. If a farmer, however, fails to stamp the card over a long period of years he will have to do it in the end, and there is no question of confining him to eight stamps. The proposal in either of the amendments is quite wrong. I notice in Senator Loughman's amendment that he would not even fine the employee at all.

There is a fine. It is stated separatelty.

Except that he would have to pay for eight weeks. Surely the Senator does not suggest that that is proper punishment, in a case where there might be 28 weeks due. I could not accept the amendment for the reasons I have stated.

Senator Hawkins suggests a penalty of £5 and someone else suggests £25. It is perfectly clear that this is to cover a half-holiday. Therefore, the fine is for one instance. I think both are too high. You cannot get good will by colossal penalties which you know that no judge will impose. I support Senator Hawkins regarding £5 and think even £2 would be sufficient, because it is clearly a continuing offence.

On the second point, I do not quite agree with Senator O'Connell. I have a good deal of sympathy with the aim of amendment No. 14, but it may require redrafting. Senator Hawkins' amendment by itself will not meet the case, as the reference to two months does not give any date. That may be met to some extent by Senator Loughman's amendment. The House should realise that this is not a simple Bill, not nearly so simple as Senator O'Connell thinks. If an employee works on the half-day, that does not entitle him to payment. He has to prove that for each day he got his employer's consent. That is the Bill as it stands. This is an effort to get a half-day for as many agricultural workers as possible, and I am supporting that principle and any criticism I make is to try to make it work. My opinion is that it is not practicable to sue for more than about eight weeks, as the necessary proof, that the employer gave his consent, could not be proved in any court for a period of, say, a year, as the Senator suggests. You are really helping the worker by drawing his attention to the fact that he must give notice. The point made by Senator Loughman is extremely important. It is eight weeks back from the day he claims. When he claims, certainly after that he should be entitled, as the case may not be settled for many weeks. I do not think Senator Hawkins intended to stop that. The two amendments should be combined, or a new one put in. To make this practicable, there must be some limit and workers all over the country must be told that, if there is a doubt in regard to the payment, they should claim it within at least eight weeks. Once they make the claim, they should get also whatever they are entitled to afterwards.

In the very nature of this Bill, there are many doubts. There is not going to be a dispute about the payment of an amount, but if there is not goodwill between worker and farmer there will in many cases be a dispute as to whether the consent was asked or whether the man worked at all on the half-day. Where there is some uncertainty as to hours, there will be doubt as to whether or not the man got the four days. I honestly believe that for the protection of the workman there should be some limit, within a period which can be proved.

I see one weakness in the amendment, and in Senator Douglas's support of it. It means that the farm labourer would be suing for about £2 or £3, the amount of eight half-days' wages and the question is whether it is worth his while going to law.

There would be this inducement, that he would not continue to work more than the eight weeks.

Mr. Burke

I want to support Senator Loughman's amendment. Half of the people who work on agricultural holdings are either small farmers or relatives of the people for whom they work, and it would create very bad blood if there were claims made for three, four or five years. It might tend to cause family feuds. For that reason alone, I think it is necessary to adopt Senator Loughman's amendment. I am sorry that Senator Colgan did not make any reply to that. That was the main point Senator Loughman made in his amendment.

With regard to some of the points raised by Senator Quirke, there is probably need for clarification in the definition in connection with the stud farm. Stud farms are not mentioned in the definition at all.

Mr. O'Farrell

I hope that no agricultural labourer will ever have to go to law with his employer. I would be in favour of having a reduced penalty, because if you have a penalty of £20 it is rather a threatening amount. The courts will never impose a penalty of £20. The maximum penalty is very seldom imposed. It gives the impression that somebody wants to be vindictive. Senator O'Connell has given some of the reasons already for rejecting the limitation to eight weeks or two months. We must enable the worker to claim what he is legally entitled to. No Senator would accept this in relation to his own business. No farmer would accept it and no auctioneer either. There is a Statute of Limitations and we must not make a new Statute of Limitations for the most helpless and yet the most essential section of the community. The agricultural workers are the least well paid.

I do not think that anybody is likely to allow their half-day compensation to accumulate, because the Bill itself provides that the half-day must be given within fourteen days. If a man chooses not to take the half-day and says to the farmer that he will not take the half-day that week but will take the money instead, it is quite obvious that the farmer will be willing to pay and the worker willing to accept the money.

It was made abundantly clear in this House that a penal clause was necessary. One Senator has said: "Pass what law you like but never will I pay a man employed by me for a half-day that he has off in the week." That statement was made here by a Senator.

Who made it?

Mr. O'Farrell

It was made by Senator Bennett, when Senator Counihan was not here, on account of the snow. I said he was bluffing. I do not think it is right for any man, a member of the legislature, to get up in advance and say that he is going to treat the law with contempt. If there are such people as that, they justify the workers' right to recover over any period their claims may run. I do not believe there are many people who will do that, nor do I believe that Senator Bennett will do it either. If there is anybody who is going to flout the law of this country, let him put up with the consequences.

We had enough about ill-will between employers and employees in other sections of industry when the half-holiday was introduced, when the limitation of hours was introduced and when factory legislation was brought into force. All these things were denounced and decried as impositions on the employer, and we were told that they would make for ill-will. They did not. The Bill will not make for ill-will. In the interests of goodwill, Senator O'Connell might perhaps agree that the maximum penalty should be reduced from £20 to £5. At least, that would be a demonstration that this is not a Bill intended to penalise the farmer.

I find it very difficult to take some of the statements made here seriously at all.

Mr. O'Farrell

We all do.

Particularly, some of the statements made by Senator O'Farrell. Senator O'Farrell stands up in righteous wrath, if we are to accept his attitude, at the suggestion that the back payment, if you like to put it in plain language, for half-holidays should be limited to eight weeks. Senator O'Connell, in his statement, resented the suggestion also, and said that it was not done in connection with any other Bill and they asked why, therefore, it should be done in connection with this.

As I said previously, we have running through every discussion on this Bill from the Second Stage—it will go on to the last stage—a sort of pink ribbon, I will not call it red, an attempt to put one side of this House in the position where the workers of this country must be protected from the other people. I do not accept that position. I say that the protection of the workers of this country is quite safe in the hands of the majority of the members of this House. I yield to no man in my sympathy for and interest in the workers of this country. I do not know if there is anybody else in this House, there may be one, who in actual fact worked as an agricultural worker on the land for a day's wages. I did. Therefore, I ought to know what I am talking about. Right through the discussion on this Bill an attempt has been made, and I know it will succeed, to introduce industrial conditions on the land. Senator O'Connell and Senator O'Farrell do not seem to realise the possibility of a situation arising where the agricultural worker walks up to the farmer and salutes him by his first name: "Now, Jack, I want to have a talk with you about this legislation they are introducing in the Dáil. I am not interested in this half-holiday. We will work away." Has Senator O'Farrell realised any such situation as that arising?

Mr. O'Farrell

Very often.

That really can happen and will happen in a good many cases. It will go on for a certain length of time, until something happens to break up the diplomatic relations between the farmer and his man. Then the trouble will start. While some speakers who have spoken against these amendments could not say it would cause any embarrassment to the farmers to pay the half-holiday pay, I can assure the Senators that if there is any little change and that farmers are brought back by world conditions to the condition of "pulling the devil by the tail", the paying back of half-holiday pay for a long period might mean the breaking up of the farm altogether.

Apart altogether from the ordinary working man who is employed on a farm in the traditional way of this country, there is another type altogether. The type I have in mind is the man who goes to work, as Senator Burke says, for some of his relatives. The man I have in mind is the man who goes to work for his father's first cousin. He goes there not so much for the purpose of getting a job as in the hope that he will justify his position on the farm and eventually inherit the farm. I am assuming that the farmer is a bachelor. There is no talk about a half-holiday and the law in this or any other country does not operate to the effect that this man will be stamping a card. He is only helping on the farm; he is loaned by his grandmother. It finally gets to the stage where he has been working on the farm for seven or eight years. He is then in the position that he can blackmail the owner of that farm by saying to him, "If you do not give me the farm, I will take you into court." That situation is going to be allowed develop but you could obviate that position by accepting this amendment. I would appeal very strongly that the amendment should be accepted. If the amendment is not drafted in the proper manner, if there is a single comma missing from it that should be there, surely it is open to the House to draft an amendment which will meet with the requirements of the promoters of the Bill.

With regard to the statement that there was no precedent for this sort of legislation I would appeal to the experts whom we have in this House who were sergeant-majors, majors and colonels in the "no rates" campaign. They must know all about the law. If they will carry their minds back to that period of their wild career I think they will agree that they found that if a man does not pay his rates for five years, the most the county council can claim from him is two years' rates. It might not be a good thing if that got abroad or if it became public property, because we do not know that there may not be an opposition again.

With regard to Senator O'Farrell's statement that auctioneers can collect their bills, I wish it were true. There is a statute which prevents auctioneers, manufacturers or shopkeepers from collecting their bills if they allow their bills to run too long. If he takes the debtor into court he is told that this is statute barred.

A Senator

How long has he let it run?

Too long.

Six years.

It is not sixty years.

Six years.

There is one point which the promoters of the Bill forget and which I should like to mention in support of Senator Quirke's argument. A very big percentage of the people employed in agricultural work in this country are labourers housed and fed on the farms. If one of these workers on his half-day, say after his dinner or before his tea, goes out and does some small job on the farm he can claim that he was working during the half-day. Eight or nine months afterwards when he is leaving altogether, he can claim to be paid for working on that half-holiday. Perhaps he had not done half an hour's work altogether on that particular day. I may say that I am giving half-holidays to my workers and I have been giving them for a considerable number of years and I employ more workers than most farmers in this country. Yet, I think that this Bill with all the restrictions that it is going to set up will create the greatest mess that has ever been known in the agricultural work in this country. Anybody listening to Dr. O'Connell and members of the Labour Party would think that nobody had any regard for our agricultural workers except the Labour Party. I say that the farmers have more regard for the agricultural workers than any section of the community and have always been ready to give them every concession which it was possible for them to give.

I think that Senator Douglas's contribution was the wisest and really the most helpful we have had in this debate. Some of the suggestions made were anything but helpful. Senator O'Farrell purported to quote Senator Bennett, but I think that any of us who know the type of man Senator Bennett is, will agree that the sentiments attributed to him by Senator O'Farrell were not those to which he gave expression. I think that when Senator O'Farrell reads his own presentation of Senator Bennett's words, he will feel too that he did not do justice to Senator Bennett.

Mr. O'Farrell

I want to explain that I did intend to quote the exact words but I could not because I had not the book, but immediately afterwards I got up and pointed out to the Senator what he said. He said it in the heat of the moment but he said it.

Could we have the quotation from Senator Bennett's speech?

Mr. O'Farrell

I gave you the rough quotation—that he never intended to pay this money or never intended to give the holiday.

The clear implication is that when this Bill becomes law he will not obey it.

Mr. O'Farrell

He did not say that.

That is your understanding of it.

We should have the exact quotation in fairness to Senator Bennett.

I suggest that Senator O'Farrell should look it up. I suggest that Senator O'Connell, Senator McCrae, Senator Loughman and Senator Hawkins should consider the withdrawal of these two amendments and the presentation of them again after further consideration and discussion. From may point of view I am with them in the arguments they make. Whether or not the form in which the amendment is presented is the best, is a matter for further consideration. We are trying to legislate for a situation when the law is broken. I suggest to Senator Dr. O'Connell and others that that is one of the last things that will happen. When it happens it will be for reasons that will have to be inquired into in the particular and specific case—and I submit that they would be rather strong reasons. We ought to be hesitant in regard to the matter of determining the fine. I know that the £20 mentioned in the Bill is the maximum. I agree with Senator Douglas that even £5 would be high. If a farmer is brought into court by his employee there will be some peculiar circumstance surrounding that case that is unique in the district. A farmer can be stupid just as his man can be stupid. We are trying to legislate for the odd individual who will not obey this law. You will have to try and examine the circumstances under which the law was broken. When this Bill becomes law we must all stand for its being upheld. This measure should be presented not in the light that the labourers are the depressed people in this community. because they are not. Such a statement ought not to be made in this House. If there is a free, easy and happy section in this country to-day it is the agricultural labourer. He is happier than his master and in most cases he can order things as he likes. I should like to hear the opinions of Senators Counihan, Finan, O'Dwyer, and others who are in daily touch with farming and their workers, on that point.

I agree with Senator Quirke. There is no use in trying to contend that certain people are concerned about the welfare of the agricultural workers and that others have another point of view.

Nobody ever suggested that only one section was concerned with the workers.

I got up because I wanted to say that I do not think we can settle this question satisfactorily now. As Senator Douglas has said, it is a matter for some further study and examination. I suggest to Senator Dr. O'Connell that there is a good deal in the point of view put forward by Senator Quirke. Those of us who are acquainted with rural life know that a farmer can have an employee who is not 100 per cent. efficient or anything like 100 per cent. efficient. In many cases he is the sort of person, perhaps, who does not want to take his half-holiday at all. However, if something goes astray and if there should be a quarrel, punitive legislation of this nature might be applied in a way in which I do not think anybody ever intended that it should be applied. While there may be a difference of opinion as to whether the period should be eight weeks or 12 weeks, I think that in the interests both of employer and employee it would be wise to stipulate some limit. I suggest that that is a matter that ought to be considered. I do not think we can arrive at a decision now. I suggest that Senator Hawkins, together with Senator Loughman, should withdraw their amendments until the matter has been further considered.

I understand that there is a class of agricultural worker who works on a contract for six or nine months. This worker might not be entitled to payment for half-holidays worked until the expiration of his contract. At the end of six months he would be entitled to claim pay for twenty-six half-holidays, but the amendment proposes to limit his claim to eight half-holidays. The worker would thus be deprived of half-holiday pay to the amount of the difference between eight and 26.

This Bill provides for a half-holiday, or in lieu of a half-holiday, a half-day's pay. These three amendments deal with three separate things—firstly, the penalty upon the farmer who does not obey the law. It seems to me that there is agreement in the House that the amount of the penalty should be lower than £20— perhaps £5 or perhaps something higher. Secondly, the amount that the labourer can sue for, and thirdly, the fact that Senator Hawkins in this amendment, No. 8, is combining two things, namely, the penalty on the farmer and also that the labourer should be able to get a maximum of eight weeks' pay. There are two flaws in that. One is that the "two months" is not clearly defined. It is quite clear in amendment No. 14, which is in the name of Senator Loughman. In that amendment you get eight weeks at the time the claim is made and whatever else accrues after the claim is made, which I think is reasonable. It is doubtful whether the two points should be combined. I do not know enough about the matter to decide on that. One objection is that the labourer cannot sue without getting the farmer convicted of his offence, which, perhaps, is not intended.

But I know enough about the country and the conditions about which Senator Quirke has spoken to know that an indefinite and long claim is something that leads to long litigation, probably to a great deal of prejury and probably to very serious breaches of friendly relations, and that there is, therefore, something to be said for limiting the time. There is something to be said for saying to the labourer: "Now, look here, you must not let this matter run for a long time because if you do you cannot claim."

I do not think that in our present position any of the amendments on the paper before us satisfactorily represents what the House wants. Is that not correct? I think that on the next stage we should have a separate amendment dealing with the penalty, and another amendment, in the form of amendment No. 14, which is in the name of Senator Loughman, which would either make the period eight or perhaps 12 weeks. I do not think the House is very worried about that. Without wanting to grind the labourer's face in the dust, from what I know of rural conditions in two particular counties there is a great deal to be said for a limitation so as to keep litigation from going all wrong in every shape and form—and from the point of view of the labourer himself there is a good case. Amendments Nos. 8, 9 or 14, in their present form do not satisfy us. I suggest we might leave them over and perhaps the people interested would consult with Senator Dr. O'Connell before the next stage and draft amendments that would allow us to discuss the matter and, if necessary, to divide on the matter and to decide it. I do not think we could divide satisfactorily on any of the amendments we have now before us. In that way we would come on to No. 10, which contains another very important principle.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is there any possibility of that being agreed to?

I was just wondering whether it would be possible at this stage to amend the amendment by deleting all the words after "sub-section (2)", that is, the part of the amendment which deals with the penalty, and then accepting Senator Loughman's amendment, No. 14, which would meet the point I was making. If that were agreed by the House, we could probably proceed with the remaining sections and have the Report Stage.

While I do not want to re-open the discussion again, Senator O'Connell said that this section was trying to deprive the worker of something to which he was entitled. I would remind Senator O'Connell that we have old age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions and children's allowances. While, under certain circumstances, people are entitled to an old age pension at the age of 70 they will receive that pension only from the time they apply for it even if they are 96 years of age. The same applies to the widows' pensions and to children's allowances. As a matter of fact, the regulations are more strict in that case. As Senator Quirke has interjected, we also have the question of rates. Nobody would suggest that in these cases people are being deprived of their rights and we are not depriving the worker of anything here but encouraging him to insist on his rights. As well, this provision will dissipate the possibility of any friction that might arise from long litigation between worker and employer.

I agree with Senator Hayes' suggestion but I would not agree to putting anything into the Bill now.

There is no machinery for drafting now.

Amendment No. 8 by leave withdrawn.
Amendment No. 9 not moved.

I understand that they will be recommitted in another form.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

They will come forward in another form.

Business suspended at 6.5 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.

Mr. O'Farrell

May I rise to give an explanation? Before the Adjournment, I quoted from memory the statement which I said was made by Senator Bennett on the last occasion when this Bill was under consideration. I was challenged to produce the official record and I have it here now if anyone wishes to see it. It is as follows, in Volume 39, No. 6. column 521, Senator Bennett speaking:

"I can say straightway that it will not be complied with. It cannot be complied with, and not even if we were all to be put in jail could we comply with it."

In column 522, he said:

"I say that I will not do it and my labourers will not ask me to do it."

In column 524, I referred to that and said, when Senator Bennett was listening:

"Senator Bennett and others may very well speak of defying the Government and say that he will never allow a half-day, but when threatened with a fine or imprisonment it will be a different story. I do not think it will be necessary to fine him or anyone for failing to give a half-holiday or pay in lieu of it."

I quote that to show that, if I did not give the exact words, I quoted the purport of his statement.

Amendments Nos. 10, 10a 11 and 12 may be debated together.

Captain Orpen

I move amendment No. 10:—

To add a new sub-section as follows:—

(5) The week-day in the week on which the half-holiday is allowed under sub-section (1) of this section shall be fixed by agreement between the agricultural employer and the worker but in the absence of any such agreement shall be determined in each case by the agricultural employer.

The purpose of this new sub-section is really to clarify the position. Section 2 (1) says:—

"An agricultural employer shall allow within a period ..."

Some people hold that the words "shall allow" there clearly give the employer the right and the power to determine the day of the week any particular employee may have. It is possible that a court will hold that that is true, but surely it would be better to write it into the Bill? This Bill consists of only three sections, and it is clearly obvious, from the number of amendments, that Senators are of opinion that some parts are not altogether self-evident. For that reason, I am moving this amendment, which shows a method of allocating the week-day on which any employee is to get his half-holiday, that it shall if possible be determined by agreement between employer and employee, and failing agreement, that it shall be determined by the employer.

This is somewhat similar to a section in the Shops Act regarding half-days. It shows, without a shadow of doubt, that it shall be competent for the employer to decide, and where he has more than one employee he may, if he thinks fit, ask them to go on different days. It was quite clear here on the Second Stage that some Senators were under the impression that the Bill was to provide a half-day for all the workers on pre-determined days. While that is possible in industry, it is scarcely so in agriculture, where the wheels must be kept moving regardless of the day of the week. I think the amendment is self-explanatory.

I move the following amendment to amendment No. 10:—

In line 3 of the amendment, after the word "worker", to insert the following words: "for each period of three months".

I do not know whether Senator Orpen is prepared to accept it. He suggests that the right to determine the day is to be left completely in the hands of the employer. There should be some period in which a particular half-day should operate and I think three months is a reasonable period. If the amendment is allowed to go through without being amended, there would be a council of war every Monday morning between the employer and his men to decide on what day of the week they would get. Senator Orpen mentioned the Shops Act. There is an arrangement under it by which the employees get a half-day on a particular day of the week. Some particular day is fixed for every worker in a shop. There should be some set period in this Bill, if this new sub-section is accepted. I see that Senator Hawkins has something on similar lines and may have something to say about it.

The difference between Senator Hawkins' amendment No. 12 and amendment No. 10 which was proposed by Senator Orpen, is that Senator Hawkins suggests that agreement is necessary, but he has made no provision for what would happen in the event of no agreement. While I might be inclined to accept Senator Hawkins' amendment from a working-man's point of view, if there is no agreement the worker is bound to get his half-holiday irrespective of what inconvenience it may cause to his employer. I remember when the point was raised during the Second Reading debate that somebody asked what would happen in the event of there being agreement. I indicated my personal view at the time that if there was no agreement the employer ought to be the person who would decide. The period of three months suggested in Senator McCrea's amendment is reasonable. I would be prepared to accept Senator Orpen's amendment as amended by Senator McCrea's. Perhaps, Senator Hawkins will agree to that. I would not, under any circumstances, agree to amendment No. 11. Amendment No. 11, as I read it, would not give any voice at all to the worker as to when he should take his holiday. In the event of non-agreement between them the most reasonable and the fairest thing would be for the employer to fix the date, but he ought to fix it over a period. I think three months is a reasonable period.

I am sorry that Senator O'Connell has accepted this new sub-section as proposed by Senator Orpen. It says: "shall be fixed by agreement between the agricultural employer and the worker but in the absence of any such agreement shall be determined in each case by the agricultural employer." Not "may be determined" but "shall be determined."

"May be" would be no good.

We hear many statements in this House relative to the good relations that exist between employers and employees in the agricultural industry. We all know they exist. We all know that there is an amount of co-operation between workers and employers in the agricultural industry that is not found in the same situation in industrial affairs. While I believe that where agreement cannot be got it rests with the employer to fix a date, I think it is injudicious to put it into the Bill. We should leave that to the employer. It will not create a good impression on the workers to think that the employer has the last say in this matter. I would rather that it would be left between the farmer and the worker than have it made a matter of law. Amendment No. 12 in Senator Hawkins' name covers the matter completely. It ought to be left at that. If there is not agreement I do not think we should legislate for it but we should leave it to the good sense of the employer and the worker.

I have an amendment down which Senator O'Connell said he could not accept under any circumstances. If Senator O'Connell says that, I suppose there is no hope that Senator Colgan could be induced to accept it. This is a very difficult problem because really we are concerned with human beings who have managed to live together for a very long time in a very intimate way. If you do not go out to make quarrels, my opinion is that no matter how you legislate the same good conditions will continue. Please God they will continue to exist. It would be very tragic if it were otherwise. I have put down the amendment because, in my judgment, we should be clear and explicit on this measure. My feeling is that there will less trouble if both employers and employees are clear about their rights and responsibilities.

There is nothing more conducive to woolly thinking or which may ultimately result in court proceedings, than the type of legislation that is not quite clear and explicit. In so far as Senator Orpen with the collaboration of Senators O'Connell and McCrae, can create a situation where the farmer and his men will have a talk at the beginning of the period, to determine or arrange his problems, and in so far as they are making preparation that that will take place, I think they are doing everybody a service. They are putting their relations between the two parties on a specific basis and there cannot be any question of each not knowing what his rights are. Senator O'Connell says that I as an employer might—it would be the last thing I would do—decide arbitrarily that my man was to go on Tuesday this week, on Wednesday next week and on Thursday the week following, if it suited me. I do not think that is the way it should be, but neither do I think it should be in the hands of my employee to say: "I am going now." If I say to him: "Look at what you are leaving", he should not be in the position of saying to me: "I do not give a brass farthing; I am going." That is all wrong; it is making for instability in the planning and execution of the work in the fields. If I have a field of hay waiting, and if I have planned beforehand that my man or men are to cut that field of hay or cut the grass for ensilage or whatever processes it has to go through, to make it fit to store up for the winter, that plan should be observed by my men. The men can similarly have a plan that they are going to have a half-day on certain days.

It is possible in certain circumstances to let the men go at any time they like. Senator McGee will tell you that he can allow his men off at any time as they can stop the tractors any time, but a man who has 20 or 30 cows to milk would be in a different position. Other people like that would like to know when the men are going and who is going on Wednesday, Thursday or Friday, if there are 30 men round the place. I think that a contribution is being made on both sides of the House to clarify the situation for all concerned. Why should we not all co-operate in that, because I do not think anybody is going to suffer for having the position clarified from the beginning? So far as I am concerned, I ask leave to withdraw my amendment in view of the obvious agreement between Senators O'Connell, McCrae and Orpen.

It was in order to make some contributions towards avoiding the pitfalls to which Senator Baxter refers that I was prompted to put down amendment No. 12. Those who understand the farming community appreciate that there are periods of the year in respect of which there would be a firm agreement between the farmer and his labourers providing that they would have their half-holidays on a particular day, just as in country towns shop assistants have half-holidays on a particular days. It is not the same in every town, but on a particular day in each town all the shops are closed. They usually have a half-holiday on a Saturday. It may not be suitable for the farming community to have the half-holiday on a Saturday, but the farmers and their employees will have to make provision that each case will be dealt with in the way best suited to themselves and, under my amendment, the farmer on the one hand and the worker on the other, would know that for a period of three months the half-holiday would be on a particular day. I think that it would probably suit the farmer to change the half-holiday according to the season of the year. It might suit a farmer in one case to have the half-holiday on a Saturday during the winter months, whereas, on the other hand, it would not be suitable to have it on that day in spring or in the harvest time. I can quite understand the desirability for reaching agreement, because, after all, the farmer must have some say, just as the shopkeeper or any other employer has his say, as to the particular day on which it would suit him to give the half-holiday. I am prepared to withdraw this amendment, provided we get a guarantee from Senator O'Connell that something will be done to bring about what we are trying to achieve in the various amendments before the House.

There is a small point which I wish to make. The three months would start probably when the Bill becomes law. If the first three months were a fixed period it might cut across two such periods. I would suggest that there should be a little flexibility regarding the first portion of that particular section.

I take it that the farmer and his workers can arrange, for example, for the month of June any way they please. Then you have a three-monthly agreement for the months of July, August and September. I assume that it should be flexible as between different parts and different farmers.

For the first period, they could agree on two different dates. Suppose the period embodied was three months it should be split. It should be open to the farmers or the workers to say that for the first three months, they would take Friday and for the remaining six weeks they would take Saturday or some other day.

It can be left to Senator O'Connell to bring in a new amendment.

There is no necessity. We can accept the amendment as it is.

Mr. O'Farrell

In the desire to avoid one difficulty, you may create another. If you make an agreement for three months and fix it inflexibily for 13 weeks, it may happen that within that period something would occur that would make it desirable for the farmer to change it, and no provision is made in the amended amendment for such a change.

Mr. O'Farrell

The amendment, as amended reads:—

"The week-day in the week on which the half-holiday is allowed under sub-section (1) of this section shall be fixed by agreement between the agricultural employer and the worker for each period of three months."

There is no provision made for an alteraction. It remains fixed for three months. I see Senator Hayes wagging his head although generally he professes to know nothing about agriculture. It seems to me that some difficulty may arise unless some provision is made for altering the day. I would suggest that if Senators O'Connell or Hawkins wanted to redraft the section, they should provide for that modification.

I think it necessary that something should be done to make it possible for the farmers and the workers in agreement to change the half-holiday. It may be that the hay-making season may come along and it may be necessary to change the day so as to enable as much hay-making as possible to be done within a short period.

If agreement is reached to give a man a half-holiday on a certain day every month for three months, and the farmer, say, is faced with the problem of new hay and old hay, and if there should be a month's harvest in between, the position would be very difficult indeed.

In most cases, agricultural workers want a half-holiday the whole year round on Saturday. The difficulty is that at certain times of the year Saturday is the most awkward day for a farmer to give a half-holiday. If it is to be insisted upon that the worker will have the right to walk out on Saturday, it will stop altogether any stall feeding that may be done in this country. On Saturday, provision is made for Sunday's work in respect of the preparation of the food for stall feeding. We must not forget that cattle have to be fed on Sundays as well as on Saturdays and other days of the week. Few could do the work on Sunday if the food were not prepared on Saturday.

Senator Orpen's amendment seeks to ensure that the farmer will have the right to declare on which day the half-holiday is to be taken.

Why should the farmer have that right? Senator Counihan's statement is a terrible admission—and he is a farmer. He has admitted that, in order to get along on Sunday, a farm labourer must do twice the amount of work on Saturday. I agree that it is most essential that there should be the utmost co-operation between the farmer and his worker, but I will not agree that the choice in this case should be given to the farmer.

Could we have the terms of the amended section?

It is to be fixed by agreement for periods of three months. That is what we will have when this is amended. Suppose we come to this week's work. Surely it is permissive for the employer and the employee— if, for instance, there should be a field of hay which requires attention and they know from the weather forecast that rain is coming—to arrange among themselves about the half-holiday. Would it not be better to do that than to have to do twice the amount of work the next day? There is nothing in this to exclude that agreement. I accept it that that is the position. We can all realise that we are doing the right thing.

I should be in favour of the House fixing the day were it not for the unfortunate weather which we experience in this country.

We have no control over that.

The hay and the harvest are the difficult periods. We have had hardly any good weather since June, 1949. There ought to be some sort of flexibility during these periods. I do not know how it should be done but the House ought to consider the matter carefully and allow the employer and the employee to arrange for days that are suitable in so far as the work on the farm is concerned. I think it would be in the interests of agricultural production if an amendment were inserted to cover that point.

That is what the amendment proposes—agreement between the two people.

We have heard a lot about the good relations that exist generally between the farmers and the workers. I subscribe whole-heartedly to that view. If there is a three-months agreement generally, it will work out that one man on the farm will get his half-day perhaps on Wednesday, another man perhaps on Thursday, another man perhaps on Friday, another man perhaps on Saturday, and so forth. Senator Baxter has mentioned the possibility of difficulty arising when hay is down and bad weather is coming. Despite-the good relations between the farmer and his workers, which we have heard so much about, is it reasonable to assume that the man who is due to take his half-holiday on Wednesday will walk out on that day, even though there is urgent work to be done, rather than stay and help with the work and take either extra pay or else the half-holiday due to him at some other time, perhaps in the next week? In all these matters you must legislate for the person who is not inclined to do the reasonable thing.

For perhaps 80 or 90 per cent. of our farmers, we did not need this measure at all, because the farmers were already giving a half-holiday. It was the other 20 per cent. or 10 per cent. who made this Bill necessary. We remembered the grumbling of some people in connection with compulsory tillage—we remember some people saying: "We do not mind tilling if the next man has to do it, too." I think that this amendment is reasonable and that it will meet all the difficulties that are likely to crop up.

Amendment No. 10, as amended, agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.

What about amendment No. 5?

The principle of amendment No. 5 is dealt with in amendment No. 10.

It seems to be presupposed that the half-holiday must be as from midday until the end of the day. The fact that it might be taken between the working hours of the day, or in the morning portion of the day, does not seem to have been taken into consideration. I am just raising that point for the sake of having it discussed. I have not any special ideas in connection with it. It was mentioned against the Bill originally so far as the dairy farmers are concerned. They are very badly affected by this particular Bill. I felt that if it would suit the employee to get his four hours in the middle of the day he could then attend to the milking and the feeding of cattle in the morning and in the evening.

That is not a half day, I suggest.

The Bill states four hours.

I suggest to Senator Loughman that that matter could be covered by a special amendment on the Report Stage.

In this case, it presupposed agreement between the farmer and the worker. I believe that the workers are strong at present.

In my opinion all the strength is with the employee at present. At the same time, I wish to see the farm labourer get the half-holiday.

I cannot understand why four hours given in the middle of the day should be regarded as a half-holiday. The day, after all, is broken in two. I would point out that industrial workers must get their half-holiday——

I suggested to Senator Loughman that that point might be covered by a special amendment on the Report Stage.

In mentioning amendment No. 5, Senator Loughman suggested that the four hours might be taken at any time during the day. I submit that that is not a half-holiday. It must be either before or after lunch.

I would like to say the same. I would be awfully sorry if this House were even to suggest this amendment to give farm labourers a split day.

This amendment is not before the House.

And I hope it never will.

I move amendment No. 13:—

To add a new sub-section as follows:—

(5) For the purpose of the Act a period of five consecutive days shall be deemed to be one week in any week.

The Bill states that the worker will be entitled to a half-holiday if he works for a full week and I was puzzled as to what exactly a full week was and whether a person who worked for less than seven days would be entitled to a half-holiday. I should not have put in "five consecutive days" as it would have been better to say "five days". I would not like to think that an employee who worked for at least five days would be expected to work a full week in order to get a half-day. If other people were happy with four days, I would be happy too, but I want no worker to be refused a half-day because he did not work a full week of six or seven days.

Mr. Burke

The point would be better covered by mentioning hours. The agricultural working week is 54 hours and you could say that after 50 hours' work a half-day of four hours would be granted. There is something similar in the Conditions of Employment Act, governing overtime. After 48 hours overtime must be paid.

As I understand it, the Bill requires a man to work a full week before he gets a half-day, but I argue that he should get a half-day after five days, which might be considered a week. I do not want farmers to start a new idea of employing a man for four days so as to avoid giving a half-day.

This amendment requires further consideration. You are defining a week. A week has more than one meaning and is found in more than one place in the Bill. A holiday must be given where there is a contract of a week. Senator Loughman proposes to reduce the week to five days, thereby defeating his own object. The amendment has not been thought out. I think that Senator Burke is probably much more correct. I put down no amendments myself because I did not feel I had enough knowledge of farming. On the question of what is a week, it is very doubtful whether the four hours proposition could really be worked and it would be better to take so many hours. That would be the practical proposition—again on theories not based on farming. If there is a 54-hour week, and 50 hours are worked, four should be the half-day. A difficulty may arise in the case of a shorter time and an employer who wants to be ultra strict may say: "You only worked 40 hours and, therefore, you are not entitled to a half-day". In practice, I think very few do that, but where the period is very much shorter, such as one day, it is obviously rather absurd. If you want to make this really watertight make it so many hours a week to entitle a man to four hours' holiday. The amendment is not satisfactory, because it would lessen the contract period, as it prescribes what a week is. Whether the definition of a week would make "weekly" five days as well I do not know, but on the other point I am pretty clear.

My sole concern is to see that we do not bring about a state of affairs where farmers would start to employ men for four days so as to evade the half-holiday. I have not very strong feelings other than that, and if hours cover the point better than days I will be very happy.

You would have to relate it to sub-section (1) of Section 2. If Senator Loughman would read that it would clarify the whole position. A period of two weeks is specified.

My feeling was that it only complicated matters.

That is all it does.

We might consider something else. We do not need it at all.

Mr. Burke

There would be a difficulty there if the Agricultural Wages Board changed the number of hours.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 14 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

With regard to sub-section (3), which deals with a case where the worker, instead of taking a half-day, remains at work, has the worker any right? Suppose the worker wanted to work on the half-day in order to gain extra remuneration, could he force the employer to allow him to do so?

Not under the terms of the Bill.

Mr. Burke

There is the question of broken time in the country. We are trying to relate industrial conditions to some extent to agriculture I think, and we should put in some provision to cover wet or broken time so as to avoid friction and to have as far as possible something clear and concrete. I thought that on the Report Stage I would, with your permission, move an amendment where if an employer in any week pays an agricultural worker for wet or broken time, this payment may be offset against the half-holiday or the payment in lieu of the half-holiday or any portion thereof. I think that is necessary because if something like that is not done you will have a lot of argument. The farmer will say, "I paid you for two days which were wet and now you want a half-holiday."

I will not talk about that now but there will be a lot about it if it is put in.

I am inclined to agree with Senator Burke although I would be slow to introduce an amendment. As I said on a previous stage, if farmers were compelled by law to provide a half-holiday for their workers it would mean, I believe, the introduction of industrial conditions and also the introduction of the clock which never heretofore operated on the farm as most Senators will agree. If the farmer is compelled to make provision for a half-holiday I think that the natural result will be that the farmer will say to himself: "If I have to give a half-holiday and if there is a wet day I should be allowed to cut the man for that wet day." That has never been the case. Though we are agreed on the principle here, we ought to provide for this. As a Party we made provision for the builders' labourers. Then we were dealing with industrial conditions. This Bill is an attempt to introduce industrial conditions on the farm and you cannot close your eyes to the consequences which are bound to follow.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 3.

I move amendment No. 15:—

To insert before Section 3 a new section as follows:—

(3) This Act shall be administered by the Agricultural Wages Board and the board may in the name and on behalf of an agricultural worker institute civil proceedings to recover any sum due to a worker under this Act in accordance with the provisions of the Agricultural Wages Acts of 1936 and 1945.

I think this is self-explanatory. I cannot see any provision in the Bill by which a worker can recover any privilege to which he is entitled under the Bill. This will enable the worker to apply to the Agricultural Wages Board to investigate his claim and if necessary the board can proceed against any unscrupulous employer who might be inclined to deprive him of his half-holiday wages. It will not improve the relations between the worker and the farmer if it is left to him to take whatever steps are necessary to bring the man to court. As the Agricultural Wages Board is operating the 1950 Holidays Bill, it is only right they should be asked to administer this also.

This amendment will help very considerably. The only other remedy which would be left would be for the employee to take the employer into court. In many cases the amount he could legally recover would be small —and if some of the amendments were passed it would be smaller still. If the amendment is accepted and the Agricultural Wages Board operate this, there may be no legal proceedings at all. In fact, there would not be any, except in an extreme case. If a farmer were visited by an officer of the board and told he should pay what the man is claiming or there would be legal proceedings, it would be settled and there would be no need to appeal to the court.

Earlier in the discussion on this Bill I raised a point as to what authority would be responsible for the administration of the Bill. Now we come to a very serious flaw in the Bill as introduced, in that no provision was made. This amendment provides that the administration be handed over to the Agricultural Wages Board, but before a case can be taken to court the employee must inform the board. Therefore, in the first instance, it is the employee who is taking action. An investigation will be carried out by the officials and the employer may agree to pay the money withheld and to comply with the regulations. The cost of administration will have to be borne by the Wages Board, but it will boil down to this, that it is the board which will act on information received. Otherwise the board must appoint sufficient inspectors to investigate the conditions on every farm.

The fewer inspectors the better.

That is all right. At this hour of the night, I do not wish to be drawn into a discussion as to whether we should have more inspectors or less. We have heard many a time that the freer you leave the farmer the better, but in this very Bill we are making provision for more inspectors, to place more obligations on the farmer by an Act of Parliament.

Is the Senator not for it?

I made it clear on the Second Reading that I would have opposed the Second Reading were it not for the fact that then the Bill as introduced would have become law, which would have been a bad thing for the farmer, the employee and the country as a whole. That is why we made every possible attempt to amend the Bill. From what we have seen here to-day, I think the best thing that could be done would be to withdraw the Bill and let us have a new one. Whether this is a responsibility that should be handed over to the Agricultural Wages Board or not, I am very doubtful. It is said that it will maintain good relations, but every farmer knows that an inspector was sent because some one of the employees gave information behind his back to the Board.

I presume that Senator McCrea was advised to put the amendment down in this form. I do not know what "shall be administered" means, whether it means that they can advise and go to no expense, or whether they can appoint inspectors to prosecute in the name of the person and incur legal costs. If it has the latter meaning, I have some doubt as to whether it can be accepted as an amendment from this House, as we have no right to incur expenditure. It seems as if this might have been put in this form to avoid expenditure, in which case it might be better to leave it until some authority can take it up, so that the worker can get the union or someone else to act. If you leave it to a body that has no function and no money to spend, you may be in a worse position. I am not opposing the amendment, but I would like to be quite sure as to how it would operate. I had experience before of an industrial Bill, a Private Member's Bill, which did not operate because, though the Bill was passed by a substantial majority in both Houses, we could not get machinery to enforce it—and what is the business of nobody or of very few people turns out not to be done at all.

I do not think this amendment is really necessary. It makes provision for a situation which will arise only when the employee is leaving. Once you reach the stage that action is being taken against an employer, that ends the good relations and they had better part company— and they will.

If he will not give him his half-day, it is about time the good relations were severed.

Pray God we have not the relations between some of them that we have between some of the commercial people and the labour organisations in this city, on a plan to keep down production. That is what it amounts to. If a worker has a grievance against his employer, that he is not getting his half-holiday and has not been given money in lieu of it, and proceeds to take action to secure his rights, as he is entitled to do—I do not mind if the Agricultural Wages Board is cited as the authority to do that—it simply means that they are paid up when the labourer is leaving. It has been argued here that he has no power of action. That is something I cannot accept. It seems to me that he has the same right of action against the employer in respect of the half-day's pay as he would have against the employer for arrears of wages. The labourer has a perfect right to go into court and take action if the employer owes him money. If he is owed a sum of money, whether it is £5, £3 or 30/-, he will have no difficulty whatever in finding a solicitor who will take up his case. If he is able to prove his case in court, the employer will not come very well out of it. The judgment of any district justice on any case like that would be that the employer was evading his legal responsibilities. The labourer would not only get a decree for arrears of wages but the employer, in addition, would be fined the maximum sum. That is my view about it.

I have had the wages inspector with me—not for some time now. He was the third inspector who came on a summer day. He came to know how many men I had and what they were being paid. He did not even accept what I said. He had to see the employees and the men had to come in out of the field. It may be Senator McCrea's or Senator O'Connell's idea that if you have inspectors from the wages board making investigations you will just keep everybody up to scratch. If that is what is in their minds, there may be something to be said for its insertion in the Bill. There are very few employees to-day so soft that they do not know their rights.

I am becoming more and more alarmed as we go from section to section. I am inclined to agree now with Senator Hawkins when he says that what we need is not amendments but a whole new Bill.

I thought Senator Quirke was going to agree with Senator Baxter.

If Senator Hayes would not be so irritable because of the fact that Senator Baxter has already expressed his agreement with me, we might be able to enlighten him on agricultural conditions between us. This amendment is really unnecessary. It is not, with due respect to Senator McCrea, properly drafted. It makes no provision as to who is to move in the matter. It does not say who is to approach the Agricultural Wages Board. We must assume that the Senator either forgot to examine the position sufficiently to make provision for that matter, or else he deliberately left it out.

I am becoming alarmed as we go from section to section. If there is anything that frightens me more than anything else it is this talk about inspectors. We had a statement from the shell-shocked Minister for Agriculture that never again would an inspector cross the farmer's fence without an invitation from the farmer. I felt sorry for the Minister at the time. I inquired from one of his colleagues and he told me: "Do not take any notice of the poor devil, as he was shell-shocked." I asked where he was shell-shocked. I do not know whether my informant said Ballaclava or Ballygar.

You are going away from the amendment.

I thought I was dealing very directly with the amendment. If we accept this amendment, it will mean that we will have numerous inspectors —which, we were told by the Minister for Agriculture, would not be necessary under the Coalition Government. I cannot see why this suggestion comes before the House, that the matter should be dealt with by the Agricultural Wages Board. I do not know why it could not be dealt with by some section of the Department of Agriculture or some section of the Department of Industry and Commerce, which would appear more appropriate, as far as I can judge. The only reason I can see for this amendment is that the Minister for Agriculture, reading over the Bill in his spare time, must have seen the difficulty with which he was going to be faced. He must have seen, as anybody would see, that the time for inspectors had not passed and that, with the introduction of this Bill, we would want not hundreds of inspectors but, perhaps, thousands, and that he would have to utilise Senator McCrea's amendment to get him out of his difficulty.

Freedom of speech is a marvellous thing.

There was no ulterior motive behind this amendment. We did not have to go to a very strong opponent of the Bill—as was shown by his vote in the Dáil—to advise us as to what kind of amendment we would put into it. The wages board, as Senator McCrea stated, administers the Agricultural Workers Holidays Act and the Wages Act. If anybody were to administer this, the wages board would appear to us to be the appropriate body. Senator Quirke asked: "Why not the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Industry and Commerce or inspectors from either Department?" I suppose Senator Quirke would have the same objection to an inspector from any of those Departments.

Not from the Department of Industry and Commerce, because the Minister for Industry and Commerce never said he would have inspectors.

The alternative to this is that the man himself would sue his employer. Senator Baxter states that he will get a solicitor to do that and go to court, but the amount involved in many cases would not be more than £2. I agree with Senator Hawkins that the employee should report the matter. I do not see any wrong in that. If an official from the wages board came and told the farmer that he would have to pay this amount and that he was legally bound to pay, otherwise the alternative would be to take the matter to court, I believe it would be settled in 99 cases out of 100. I still think that is a more practical way of dealing with it. Very probably, if the employee went up to his employer and said: "If you do not give me this money, I will have to report it to the wages board," that would be the end of the matter also.

If the workers, instead of going to the farmer and telling him they were going to take action in the court the next day, said they were going to report it to the wages board, I cannot see any difference between them.

Mr. O'Farrell

I have privately expressed objection to this amendment for the same reasons practically as have been publicly stated here to-night. I do not see that we have any right to ask that the Agricultural Wages Board should be the administering authority under this. I do not know that we have any power to insist that an existing body will administer a Bill passed in this House. Senator Baxter has already pointed out that if you agree to the amendment, it will mean additional expenditure by the Agriculture Wages Board for inspectors and for prosecutions. I am not convinced that we have power to force any Department, even an existing body like the Agricultural Wages Board, to go ahead and engage in prosecutions and involve themselves in all the expenditure connected with that. That is one reason why I objected to it.

Another is that up to the present the Agricultural Wages Board has not a very good reputation amongst agricultural workers. The fact is that, whether their grievances were justified or not, they have continually complained about that body. If that be the case, if it is unsatisfactory for the purpose for which it was specifically set up, it is bound to be unsatisfactory for the additional purposes for which we are providing now. There is a third reason. I am convinced that if you give a body like the Agricultural Wages Board power to prosecute without saying who is to bring the complaint before them, you are leaving it open for anybody who wants to make mischief, between men and men, to send in anonymous or other letters to the Agricultural Wages Board, saying that So-and-So is not giving his men a half-holiday or is not paying his workers. You then start an investigation which may be warranted or which may not be at all justified. It may be that the man and his employees had agreed for their own satisfactory reasons that they were going to work uninterruptedly that particular week. Again, where a worker is not enforcing payment for a half-holiday worked— he may get something in lieu of it— somebody outside comes along to act as the common informer and to create trouble between that man and his employer.

I think you are depriving the worker of no right by leaving out that amendment. There is nothing to prevent any man who thinks he has a justifiable grievance taking action himself to remedy his grievance. I understand also that the agricultural labourers are now being organised in a trade union and it will, therefore, be open to them to report their grievances to the trade union, which can take action to have such grievances remedied. I think this is a bad amendment and I do not think it desirable that it should be embodied in the Bill.

I think that after that speech, there will be no statement charging the Labour Party with having unanimously come to an agreement that we must force this Bill through the House.

It may mean that there are two Labour Parties yet.

I beg your pardon; you have something more to learn. If it is the considered view of the House that this is not necessary and that it is going to cause any difficulty reasonably anticipated by some members, there is no desire on our part to have it inserted. We thought, and I still think, that it would be the best way to administer the Act but if that view does not appeal to the House, we shall withdraw the amendment.

I think it is unnecessary because agricultural workers are difficult to get and if a worker is not getting his half-holiday or his payment in lieu of it, he just will not stay working for that man and he will get ten others ready to employ him. I think a provision of that kind is not necessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18 in the names of Senators Hawkins, Loughman and Hayes, may be debated together.

I move amendment No. 16:—

To insert before Section 3 a new section as follows:—

3. (1) Where a worker in any working week has been allowed by an agricultural employer a whole holiday on any public holiday or church holiday falling within the week such worker shall not be entitled to claim a half-holiday under the immediately preceding section in respect of that week.

(2) For the purposes of this section a public holiday or a church holiday shall be any one of the days which is so defined in Section 8 of the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1939.

As we have been a long time considering this measure of two sections, I shall be as brief as possible. Senators are aware that it is the practice amongst the agricultural community to keep church holidays and bank holidays as real holidays, that is as days on which no work is done. The purpose of my amendment is to secure that where such a church holiday is taken as a holiday, a half-holiday will not be taken in that week. I hope that no Senator would try to deprive an agricultural worker of anything he is entitled to, but in present circumstances, particularly having regard to world conditions, we should try to keep our agricultural community working as long as we possibly can to produce for the people the things they require very badly. It is only reasonable to expect that where a bank holiday or a church holiday is taken as a holiday by an agricultural worker, he should forgo a half-holiday in that particular week.

The only difficulty I see about this is the phrase "a whole holiday". I am wondering what would happen on church holidays where a man comes in to feed cattle or to milk cows? In that case he is not getting a whole holiday. Would Senator Hawkins explain how we would get over that?

I think we can leave it to the good relations which habitually exist between the farmers and their workers to find some solution for cases of that kind. The type of person I want to cover is the person who takes a whole holiday and does not turn in at all. With the exception of workers who may be engaged in feeding animals or milking cows, all agricultural workers take a church holiday as a full holiday.

I think that Senator Hawkins' amendment is a better one than mine and I should like to have my amendment withdrawn in favour of it.

In submitting amendment No. 18, which is on similar lines to Senator Hawkins' amendment, I had in mind that agricultural work, being purely seasonal work and the two most important periods being spring-time and harvest-time, if you had two consecutive days as a holiday and a half-holiday, it would retard work very seriously, particularly having regard to the experience we have had with the seasons of late. The farmer may be saving hay, corn and turf at the same time and to have two consecutive holidays in the same week would, as I say, retard production very seriously. These are the only reasons I have in mind in submitting this amendment.

We are accepting Senator Hawkins' amendment.

Amendment No. 16 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 not moved.

Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21 are similar and might be taken together.

I move amendment No. 19:—

To insert before Section 3 a new section as follows:—

3. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act it shall be lawful for an agricultural employer and an agricultural worker to enter into a contract for a period not exceeding ten calendar months whereby the agricultural worker shall agree to work a full working week during the period and the agricultural employer shall agree to pay him over and above the agreed wages a sum which shall be equivalent to the half-holiday remuneration provided for in Section 2 of this Act in respect of the number of half-holidays that will have accrued during the agreed period.

I hope this amendment will be accepted unanimously by the House in the spirit in which it was put down. As it is at present drafted, the Bill will constitute a very grave hardship as far as the dairying industry is concerned and I may say that that is the industry which I have most in mind. We have heard a lot of talk this afternoon about the difficulties which arise at the harvest, but whatever may be said in regard to ordinary agricultural work it would undoubtedly be very difficult to operate the half-holiday system, as at present outlined in the Bill, in so far as the dairying industry is concerned. Cows have to be milked twice a day. If they are not milked regularly twice a day they will lose their milk. In addition, it is most desirable that there should be as little change as possible as far as the persons who are milking the cows are concerned. The person in charge must generally known each cow. It would be a very grave disturbance if there were much change of hands. We have not reached the stage at which a cow can keep her milk over from the half-holiday until the next morning. We all agree that the present Minister for Agriculture is most optimistic, but even he, in his greatest moments of optimism, has not promised us a dairy cow that need be milked only once a day, or a dairy cow that can keep her milk over until the next day, if necessary. Therefore, everybody must agree that an exception must be made in so far as the dairy industry is concerned. I have drafted my amendment accordingly. I might say that I put down the period of ten months because that would generally cover the milking period, and also because I have the agricultural worker in mind, and I did not like to extend it too long. In my amendment I stipulated that the agricultural worker shall agree to work a full working week during the period, and that the agricultural employer shall agree to pay him over and above the agreed wages a sum which shall be equivalent to the half-holiday remuneration provided for in Section 2 of this Act. I think that that is a very fair and reasonable undertaking and that the principle of the half-day would be accepted there.

As I explained on the Second Reading, there is a precedent for this. When the Agricultural Wages Act was brought in, a fixed period of, I think, 54 hours per week was laid down in respect of the whole agricultural industry. The Act was not long in operation when it was found that it was doing great harm to the dairying industry. After a time the matter became so urgent that the wages board had to bring in an amending Order which allowed an employer to make an arrangement with an employee for a period of not less than five months under which the employee could work any number of hours per day at a fixed wage and without any claim for overtime. This amendment follows on the same lines as that agricultural wages arrangement.

It may be argued that an amendment which was passed in the other House would have provided for the difficulty— that a worker, with his employer's consent, would work on his half-holiday and be paid extra money for having worked that half-holiday. That would not meet the position in this particular case. A dairy farmer hires his hands at the beginning of the year. It would never do for a farmer to hire a man to milk his cows and not to know whether that man would stay one week and go the next week. He wants the matter to be definite right from the start. If Senators will consider my amendment carefully they will realise that it is reasonable and that it is based on real necessity. I hope it will be unanimously accepted.

Captain Orpen

The following amendment (No. 20) appears in my name on the Order Paper.

To insert before Section 3 a new section as follows:—

3. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act it shall be lawful for an agricultural worker employed on a dairy farm on which only one paid worker is employed for that worker to enter into a yearly agreement with the agricultural employer to work a full week provided that the agricultural worker is paid at least the minimum agricultural wage and in addition receives the half-holiday remuneration that he would be entitled to under the provisions of the immediately preceding section.

I put that amendment down for the purpose of drawing attention to what I think is a very serious possibility, namely, that on the small farm employing one man you may get a disruption of the pattern of our agriculture if this half-holiday is insisted upon on these farms. It appears at present that the small dairy farm is, to some extent, being replaced by the larger dairy farm. That may be desirable; I do not know. However, I think we should take note that the working of this Bill when it becomes an Act may have very serious consequences on the small farm on which one paid employee is at work. If, as I think, the coming into force of this Act will, as it were, be the last straw, so far as these small dairy farms are concerned, and if they will disappear and go into some other form of production, well and good, if that is desirable. But if we still think these small dairy farms form a valuable adjunct to our agricultural production, we should consider very carefully before we make the provisions of this Act apply to these farms. I am not speaking from experience in my own county because the small dairy farm is almost non-existent there. However, there are other parts of the country where it is quite a prominent feature. I think some of us feel that it would be very detrimental to the interests of the country to see these farms, as it were, thrown out of production and forced to alter their agricultural production through an Act which is very desirable in itself but which contains no clause which allows these farms to escape, if you like, its provisions.

I put down amendment No. 21 at the request of some agricultural workers. The contention of some of the people to whom I was talking was: "what good is a half-holiday to us? Give us a day in the month and we will be able to make a lot more of it. We can till our garden and the farmer will give us a horse and plough or the use of a tractor. We cannot do much in a half-day but we could if we had a whole day." There is no compulsion; the agricultural worker can do any of three things. He can take his half-holiday or he can work with extra pay or he can take his day's holiday in the month. It all depends on mutual agreement between worker and employer. No section should dictate to the worker and his employer or make regulations setting out how they are to work.

I think that Senator Counihan's amendment is in keeping with the way he used to buy cattle when I was a kid long ago. He suggests making a settlement with the agricultural workers by giving them a full day instead of four half days. When he used to buy cattle from me when I had not as much sense as I have now he used to bid half what they were worth.

But he did not get them.

He did succeed in getting the cattle. Maybe he would succeed in dividing a half day with the workers but I do not think he will.

I think Senator Orpen's amendment is not necessary at all. It reminds me of a story I heard a long time ago about an old woman who went to a wake. Someone came around with the whiskey and she said: "If I do not take it for God's sake make me take it because I am cold." There is already provision in the Bill for the idea behind the amendment.

Captain Orpen

In what way?

There is nothing to prevent a worker from working on every half-holiday in the year provided he gets paid and that is the one thing wrong with the Bill if there is anything wrong with it. I see no reason why the agricultural worker should not get a half-holiday but what is wrong is that he does not have to take it and can stay on the farm working with the farmer's consent. This is really a manner of hoodwinking the people by increasing agricultural wages by half a day's wages each week. There is nothing to prevent a farmer from paying a half a day's wages each week. There is nothing to prevent a farmer from paying half a day's money more than he paid heretofore and allowing the worker to stay on the farm and therefore the amendment is not needed.

Senator Quirke is absolutely right.

For once.

I am not going to say for once. Sub-section (3) of Section 2 provides that a worker need not take a half-holiday but can take his pay instead. He is not obliged to take his half-holiday and can take his pay on one occasion, on two occasions or on 52 occasions or for as long as he likes. Therefore, Senator O'Dwyer's suggestion about an agreement for ten calendar months is not necessary, because not only can the employer and worker make an agreement for ten calendar months but they can make one for 12 under sub-section (3) of Section 2.

The same applies to Senator Orpen's amendment. You need not specify that the worker must be one agricultural worker employed on a dairy farm, because one agricultural worker employed on a dairy farm, one agricultural worker employed on any kind of farm or any number of workers employed on any kind of farm can, if their employers agree, take a half-day's money instead of a half-day's holiday.

Senator Counihan, in his amendment, is substituting one day's pay for two days' pay.

With the consent of the worker; he has the option.

Senator Counihan's is the only amendment which is an amendment to sub-section (3) of Section 2, because what Senator Counihan really requires to do is to to pay, if he pays the additional wages, half the half-holiday remuneration, and everybody is happy—except the labourer, presumably.

Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 seem to me to be covered—although I am not an expert on this thing—by sub-section (3) of Section 2, which is very general, has no limit of time and does not compel the worker to take the half-holiday. Senator Counihan has a different idea.

Senator Hayes did not cover the possibility of a man refusing to take the money. What would you do with him?

What do you suggest?

The only people who ever refuse to take money are Dublin people and they do not work on the land.

I cannot agree with Senator Hayes. The employee is at liberty to work and take his extra pay or to take his half-day's holiday, but an agreement made at the beginning of the year that the worker would work for a full week each week would not be binding in law because the worker could decide to walk out and take his half-holiday at any time. The possibility of a definite agreement between employer and employee that would be binding in law is not in the Bill at the present time.

All the amendment says is that it shall be lawful for an employer and worker to make an agreement and that is lawful now.

But not binding. If a man hires a worker and he agrees at the beginning of the year to work a full week for 12 months, it is quite within the power of that worker after a few weeks to say: "I will take my half-holiday," and he is entitled to do that within the provisions of the Bill. The dairying industry is different from the others. It would be much better to have the amendment in that form, as it does no harm to anyone and the agreement will be freely made and binding in law.

Regarding the amendments in general, I agree entirely with Senators Hayes and Quirke that they are not necessary. Senator O'Dwyer's amendment suggests that it should be lawful for an agricultural employer to enter into such a contract. There is nothing in the world to prevent them from entering into a binding and legal contract. If this amendment were passed, it is of no more use than if it were not passed. The amendment says: "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, it shall be lawful...." That would imply that there is something in the Bill which would make it unlawful. There is nothing of that nature in the Bill. If the Senator and his employee wish to enter into a contract, the Bill does not prevent them.

I am not sure that Senator Counihan is serious. If he is, this is a case where there will be no bargaining. This may be against the principle of the Bill altogether.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is. It is out of order. This Bill is for a weekly-half-holiday and you cannot substitute a monthly half-holiday.

It may be, but after all, Senator Hayes and Senator Quirke must forget that this is only a Bill and not an Act, and we are entitled to put in suggestions to improve it. I contend that I am quite entitled to put a suggestion as to the best way to improve the Bill.

I suggested to Senator Counihan that on sub-section (3) he could attempt to provide that where a person does take a half-holiday he will get the half-holiday pay but where he does not take it he will get only half the half-holiday pay. That would be an inducement to him. Senator O'Dwyer begins his amendment: "Notwithstanding anything in this Act...." There is nothing in the Bill to make an agreement for ten months unlawful. If, having made the agreement, the man walks out, what can you do about it, particularly to a worker on a dairy farm? There is no use in sending a Guard to haul him back by the hair of the head and tell him he must go on working. He would not go on, or if he did he would be of no use to the farmer. There is no use in talking about binding agreements, as it all depends on goodwill. Under sub-section (3) all these agreements suggested in amendments Nos. 19 and 20 could be made. I think that meets the case both of Senator O'Dwyer and Senator Orpen. Whether they will be carried out or not is another question. Nothing we can put into the Bill will make it more likely that they would be carried out than the present situation makes it.

In view of Senator Counihan's statement that this provision was suggested by agricultural workers who wanted one whole day, may I say they have only to forgo one half-holiday and they will get the whole day the next week?

They are entitled to an annual holiday, anyway.

I have every sympathy with what Senator O'Dwyer wants to achieve, but I agree with Senator Hayes about this amendment. If the two people enter into a contract, that contract stands in so far as it is enforceable in the court. There is nothing to prevent the employer taking the employee to court, or vice versa, if the terms of the contract are broken. The Senator himself says:—

"Whereby the agricultural worker shall agree to work a full working week."

All that is covered earlier under subsections (2) and (3) to which Senator Hayes has referred and also in the amendment which has been agreed to as proposed by Senator Orpen and amended by Senator McCrea. These people sit down to determine when the half-holiday may be taken. Inherent in that agreement is this other consideration, that the man is going to be paid when he works on. We cannot make it any more secure for the dairy farmer. I regard this as superfluous and unnecessary and not actually covering the circumstances which Senator O'Dwyer wants to meet. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent Senator O'Dwyer and the Limerick dairyman entering into a ten-months' contract, as they were accustomed to do in the past. The question of getting the workers to work on the half-holiday is a matter for agreement between them. I am quite sure that case will be made, too.

I think Senator O'Dwyer has more fear than he should have and hence he was prompted to put down this amendment. Under the Bill as it stands, an arrangement could be made between employer and employee on the lines suggested. I agree with Senator Baxter's viewpoint, but he refers again to a contract and says it would be enforceable in law. Let us be realistic. In how many cases is there, in fact, a contract? I took it that he implied there was to be a contract document.

Nonsense.

Then it is to be a verbal contract?

In how many cases will that be enforceable? That could be done before now, but in how many cases has it ever been brought to the courts? I have never heard of any case. Take a farmer who makes an arrangement for a worker to work at a certain rate and have certain additional rights or amenities. That may go on until, for some reason, the worker decides to go. He can give a day's notice.

Will he be paid the wages? If the worker is under contract for ten months at £140 and he walks out after three months, will the farmer pay him £40?

In nine cases out of ten he is paid by the week.

You cannot do that by contract.

I am trying to get a definition of a contract. Is there anything which is not binding or enforceable?

Ask Senator O'Dwyer.

I would urge the House to accept Senator O'Dwyer's amendment. My grounds for that would be firstly, that I would like this amendment to be accepted as it fits the facts as we know them in the south of Ireland. We know the ten months' contract. That is what we are accustomed to in hiring men in Kerry anyway outside the church gates after Mass on Sundays at the beginning of the year. The labourer wants one thing. He wants to be free at Christmas. He does not want a holiday in February, March, June, July, or August, but he wants to go home to his father and to his own household at Christmas. That is the history that we know in the south of Ireland.

Some Senators may be in doubt as to the remedy an employer has when an employee goes off in a huff in the middle of summer. Any one of us who has recourse to the law courts knows what that is. There is generally embodied in the ten months' contract a month's notice either way. We know that the farmer can succeed in retaining one month's wages. We know that if he wants to sack his employee during the ten months' contract he can pay him one month's wages in lieu of notice. I like the amendment of Senator Martin O'Dwyer for that reason, and it was out of Senator O'Dwyer's experience that this amendment came. In endeavouring to do anything in our legislative capacity, we must always seek to take cognisance of the facts that obtain in any industry. If this amendment is not inserted in the Bill the custom and the practice in the country that is of very long standing will be upset.

I stood in the labour market in Tralee last Sunday morning with a farmer who was hiring a man for the year and whether it is out of reading this Bill or not, I do not know, but that particular farm labourer said: "John, I would like to work for you as I worked for you before. I would like to live in your house, but I must be paid weekly. There is one condition I will lay down; I will not work on Sunday afternoon or Sunday evening." Was that, or was it not, his weekly half-holiday? I say that that is a binding decision in any court of law in this country. If you do not accept Senator O'Dwyer's amendment you will leave it to the courts to decide whether it is superfluous or not. Senator Baxter says it is superfluous. He is not satisfied that it is necessary. Earlier this evening we had the views expressed that a penalty of £20 was too much, but if you fail to accept this amendment you will impose a far greater penalty on some poor farmer or farm labourer down the country, to test whether this amendment is superfluous or not, or whether the ten-month contract is covered or not by the Bill as it stands without this amendment. For that reason, I would urge very strongly that the amendment should be accepted. If it is superfluous it will do no harm.

I fail completely to follow the reasoning of the Senator. Everything he has said, every statement he has made as to what may happen with regard to a contract is no help in any way to this amendment. I wonder if he has read this in connection with Sections 2 and 3 of the Bill: "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act," implies there is something contained in this Bill which prevents a contract of any kind. There is nothing in this Bill which prevents a contract being entered into.

I do not suggest there is.

Then there is no sense in accepting the amendment. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the employer and worker from entering into a contract. The amendment is entirely superfluous in view of the fact that it is already in the Bill. I fail entirely to follow the reasoning of Senator Woulfe in his last speech or his argument. It is entirely unnecessary. It would not help in any way the problem with which the Senator was faced outside the chapel in Tralee on last Sunday because John or Jim could still say to his master: "Unless you give me this and that, I will not enter into the contract." You have no way of forcing him into the contract. The only remedy John has is to leave Jim as he is and go and employ Martin if they can come to an agreement. There is nothing in this Bill to prevent them from entering into a contract. This will not help either Senator O'Dwyer or Senator Woulfe to solve their problems in any way whatsoever.

Will it do any harm?

It is superflous and you do not want to repeat what is already in the Bill.

The Bill lays down that an employer shall give the half-holiday to the employee. That is definite. The Bill in its present form allows the employee to work. On the side of the employer the Bill is definite and clear that he must allow the half-holiday. It is quite open to the employer and employee to come together and agree to work so many months but the employee can strike out at any moment he likes and claim his half-holiday. All the binding is upon the employer to give the half-holiday. It depends upon the worker whether he will take it or not. I feel quite sure that all the workers would only be too glad to get the additional half-holiday but it would prevent any misunderstanding and difficulties if the amendment were accepted.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Would it meet your point if this amendment were deferred and an amendment brought in on Report Stage when the matter has been looked into.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 22 not moved.
Section 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill, as amended, reported to the House.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Next stage?

I suggest the first day we meet after Easter would be a reasonable date.

Report Stage fixed for first meeting after Easter Recess.

I wonder would it be possible to have the Bill, as amended, circulated as soon as possible so that we can see in good time if any adjustments have to be made on the Report Stage?

It will be circulated without delay.

It may be necessary to have some sort of meeting between Senator O'Connell and some or all of the Senators who moved amendments which were more or less accepted so as to avoid any misunderstanding afterwards. Senator Hawkins, Senator Loughman and Senator O'Dwyer moved amendments which were more or less accepted, but the suggestion was that they would be put in a slightly different form. I would suggest that those Senators should have a meeting next week.

The proposal now is to adjourn until Tuesday. On Tuesday the business will consist of the Central Fund Bill, which will be concluded in the Dáil to-morrow night, and the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Bill, which is a continuing Bill. Both these Bills need to be passed before the 31st March. Senator Quirke's suggestion with regard to a meeting of Senators who had proposed amendments to this Bill can be carried out on Tuesday.

The Seanad adjourned at 9.5 p.m. until Tuesday, 20th March, 1951, at 3 p.m.

Top
Share