Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 4 Dec 1952

Vol. 41 No. 3

Agricultural Workers (Weekly Half-Holidays) Bill, 1952—Second Stage (Resumed).

Mr. Hawkins

When we adjourned the discussion on this, to my mind, very important Bill I was attempting to point out to the Seanad our appreciation of the Minister for Agriculture for introducing this amending Bill. From the remarks made by Senator Baxter, one would think that this was the first measure that was ever introduced in this House to give the agricultural worker a half-holiday. I think I have already dealt with that matter.

It may not be out of place to remind Senator Baxter of the fact that the original Bill was introduced into the Dáil as a Private Members' Bill and that the then Minister for Agriculture would not accept responsibility for implementing the provisions of the Bill without which the Bill would be null and void. When the Bill came before this House I, as an ordinary member attempted, as best I could by way of putting down amendments, to give some effect to the Bill. To my amazement I found that the majority Party in this House opposed any suggestion to give effect to the Bill at that time. I refer to the amendments which I put down to this Bill in 1950.

Having listened very attentively to Senator Baxter's objections to the implementation of this Bill, I was forced to ask myself one or two questions. Having done so, the only answer I could reasonably give was that in Cavan they certainly have a very different approach from the rest of Ireland. When this Bill was originally before this House and the Dáil, we heard from every side that there were very few employers of agricultural labour who would be affected by it because of the good feeling that existed.

I hold that that good feeling still exists between the farmer and his worker. If that good feeling does not exist, then there is something wrong in the county of Cavan which is not wrong in the rest of Ireland because throughout the length and breadth of the country I think it is true to say that the farmer and his worker are side by side. They sit at the same dinner-table and partake of all that is good in rural Ireland. It is necessary that this Bill should give to the agricultural worker something to which he is not already entitled. In the majority of cases—I do not know whether this is true or not in the case of Cavan—and in the remainder of the 32 counties of Ireland goodwill prevails between the farmer and his employee as can be seen on the occasion of fairs, market days or festivals of any kind.

I want to congratulate the Minister for taking responsibility for giving effect to this Bill. On the last occasion we had a Bill of this kind before the House the then Minister for Agriculture would not and could not because of the make-up of that Government at the time take responsibility to give effect to the Bill. Senator Baxter makes an annual lamentation. I am sure it will be the responsibility of the Chairman of this House to lament the passing away of Senator Baxter: he and all of us will pass away sometime. I am sure, when the occasion does arise, that the then Chathaoirleach will be in a very privileged position to announce that our official lamenter has passed away because on every occasion when there was any provision being made to encourage agricultural production, Senator Baxter lamented that there were so many people engaged as agricultural workers. I think he mentioned the figure of 40,000.

I remember on one or two occasions, when provision was made to give effect to wage increases for county council employees and others, Senator Baxter's voice was loudest in accusing the Government of attracting away from agricultural employment persons who should and could be gainfully employed in agriculture because of the fact that those persons were getting much better facilities through being employed by a local authority.

Senator Baxter quoted this evening a statement made by His Grace, the Archbishop of Cashel. I wondered when he quoted that statement how he could construe it to mean anything other than that the persons engaged in agriculture were not getting the same facilities as were given to persons engaged in other activities. There is an old saying that the devil can quote Scripture to suit himself. Senator Baxter is one of those persons who can always do that kind of thing. He talks about increasing production but how are we to increase production if we are going to victimise the people engaged in agricultural production as against those engaged in non-agricultural production? I think, and the House will agree with me, that if we are to encourage people, and particularly our young people, to go into agriculture the best thing to do is to give them the same facilities and the same opportunities as we give to their brothers going into industry.

Senator Baxter has done a great disservice to the agricultural community by his speech. We are all agreed that agriculture is our main arm of industry but if we are to victimise the people engaged in that industry and to say to them that we cannot afford—and even if we can we will not do so—to give them the same facilities as we give those engaged in, say, the manufacture of toy dolls for Santa Claus at Christmas, it would be a foolish approach. If we wish to encourage our people to go into this industry and if we are anxious to hold these people we must at least ensure for them the same hours of work as are enjoyed by their brothers engaged in other industries.

Mr. McCrea

I support the Bill, but not with any great enthusiasm, because I think it is a weak Bill. It is not all we desire and it bristles with safeguards which are not in the best interests of the workers. However, it at least re-establishes the right of the agricultural worker to a weekly half-holiday. Down through the years, the Labour Party, through its trade unions and organisations, has battled for the right of a weekly-half holiday for agricultural workers. They brought in a Bill some years ago to establish that right and it was defeated by an overwhelming majority. In 1950, Deputy Dunne and his Labour colleagues brought in the Private Members' Bill which has been so often referred to in this debate. It passed through the other House and eventually came to this House. In fairness to the Senators, I must say that they were very sympathetic and accepted a number of amendments for the improvement of the Bill.

That Bill was passed and placed on the Statute Book, but for some reason or other, did not become operative. The present Bill is a complete replica, although somewhat weaker, of that 1950 Bill, and I do not see any reason why, if the former Minister did not make the necessary provision, the present Minister did not put it into operation 20 months ago. I doubt if the baby is as strong as the last baby, but we hope to bring in amendments later on and I hope the Seanad will give them the same consideration as they gave the amendments to the 1950 Bill and that the Minister will accept them. I do not propose to discuss the merits or demerits of the Bill further, except to intimate that we shall certainly bring in some amendments.

I was surprised by some of the speakers in opposition to this Bill, and particularly Senator Baxter, my next door neighbour. There is nothing revolutionary or sensational, as Senator Hawkins said, in a weekly half-holiday for agricultural workers. The County Dublin farm workers have enjoyed that half-holiday for a number of years and the Seanad will agree that the County Dublin farmers, with their early markets and intensive seasonal tillage operations, are a very important body of men. They evidently see no difficulty in giving their workers a half-holiday. Things seem to be working very smoothly in County Dublin and I do not think there has been a dispute there since the half-holiday was given to farm workers.

In Wicklow, and particularly north Wicklow, it has been operating for a number of years. Wicklow is a county which supplies Dublin with milk and most of the farmers are dairy farmers. I was associated with the negotiations at the time and I must say I found them a very reasonable body of men. We made the case that it would be to their benefit to give their workers this half-holiday, that the workers would take a greater interest in their work, that they would be more attentive and more punctual and that the farmers would get a better return. They accepted the position and gave their workers the half-holiday. Some of these farmers have met me since and have told me that the statements I made had proved to be true. They were getting a better return; the men were happier and doing a better job.

I hope that, in 1952, there is no one in this House or outside it who believes that the farm worker is the next animal to the horse, a man to be harnessed early in the morning, driven to work and then brought home and unharnessed sometime during the night. That day has passed and this half-holiday is long overdue to these people who are the hardest worked people in the land.

In his support of the Bill, Senator Hawkins had to have a smack at the former Minister for Agriculture and I do not think the present Minister will mind if I have a smack at him on this Bill. The former Minister did definitely oppose the Bill and vote against it. He had the courage of his convictions, but does Senator Hawkins not remember that, when the division on the Second Reading was called, the whole Fianna Fáil Party scuttled out of the House and refused to vote for it?

Mr. Hawkins

Because the then Government would not make up their mind. If the Senator wants a discussion on this, we will have it.

Mr. Commons

It is true.

Mr. McCrea

Let the Senator not interrupt me. I do not interrupt anyone. The Fianna Fáil Party believed that the Fine Gael Party, with the help of the Farmers' Party, would defeat the Bill. That was their sole object in leaving the House, but they scuttled back in to save their faces later on.

Mr. Hawkins

No.

Mr. McCrea

When the Senator speaks of the former Minister, it is only fair to remind him of his own sins.

Mr. Hawkins

That was not the reason at all.

Mr. McCrea

I am supporting this Bill because it does re-establish the principle of a half-holiday for agricultural workers. We will have an opportunity of going into the sections in detail later and I hope that, when we have concluded our examination of the Bill, it will be something better than it appears to be at the moment.

Mr. O'Grady

We should approach this measure in a reasonable frame of mind. I was surprised to hear from the opposite benches two diametrically opposed views and I hasten to assure Senator Baxter that he is unduly perturbed as to the effect of this provision for a weekly half-holiday for farm workers. I am speaking as a man who has some slight experience as an employer of the operation of this weekly half-holiday. We have been giving this holiday over a number of years and I find it does not interfere with the operation of the farm, nor has it decreased production. Senator Baxter has stated that production has not increased over the past 50 years, but surely that could not be laid at the door of the agricultural workers? The problem of increased production is one that must be tackled by the farmers concerned and the Department. That is their job and it would be wrong to put blame for any lack of increased production on the farm labourers.

Mr. Baxter

I did not do that and I am not attempting to do it.

Mr. O'Grady

The inference is there. If agricultural production has been reduced over the last 50 years it must be remembered that the workers did not have a half-holiday during that time. I believe that where there is co-operation and where the employer treats his employee in a reasonable and humane manner he will get a better return from the operation of the weekly half-holiday than he would get by compelling the man to work against his will. Where there are good relations between the two parties you will get a better return. When we see other employees in the towns where they are well organised getting these amenities, surely we should not deny them to one section of the community only?

It may be argued that the farmers cannot afford to give their workers a half-holiday, but I do not believe that is quite true. I believe that any cost it might involve can be met by increased production and that it can be met by better cultivation of the land, better manuring and better management. These three things done well will give more production than we are now getting from the land.

We are told that people are leaving the land and I agree that that is true, but if you want to encourage the workers to stay on the land then you have to give them some of the amenities which other workers enjoy and which have been denied to them in the past. Conditions have been improved in rural Ireland over the last 50 years and people who return to the country after a long absence are surprised at the great improvements which they now find in rural Ireland.

If there is co-operation between the farmers on the one hand and the Department on the other hand, and we have some intelligent scheme of operating the land, and if the workers can be kept contented on it, then we will have the necessary increased production. The average farm worker worked from 8 a.m. until 6 p.m. for six days in the week and found it difficult to get in to make the necessary purchases for himself and his family.

Surely he is entitled to a few hours off in the week in which to do those things? I have always found that where there is a proper spirit of co-operation the worker will not object at times when there is a rush of work, such as saving the harvest, to work his time off when his employer is prepared to pay him the few extra shillings he is entitled to for doing that. The giving of this half-holiday will not in any way impair production on the farm.

Mr. Tunney

Senator O'Grady has covered much of the ground which I had intended dealing with and for a County Dublin farmer I congratulate him on the statement that he has made. I cannot leave this House without taking great exception to the statement made this afternoon by Senator Baxter. In that statement Senator Baxter cast a reflection on the workers of Ireland when he said that in this city there was a wealth of laziness. I think he ought to be ashamed of himself and should have the graciousness to withdraw this statement, which is untrue.

Irish workers are famed in every part of the world to which they have gone for having given an honest return for their pay. The Irish workers have had to face the world through the years because of oppression and because of lack of employment which in former years forced them to emigrate. We have never heard from even the greatest enemies of Ireland any criticism of the workers from Ireland who have always done their job honestly, and the statement made by Senator Baxter is very wrong. I hope he will withdraw it. Is it any wonder that the agricultural workers are inclined to leave the land if they are not given reasonable conditions of employment?

I worked as a farm labourer. It is amazing to me that people would have the spirit to remain farm labourers. Take County Dublin. A farm labourer receives £4 10s. 0d. His brother who comes into the city and works at any occupation receives at least £2 more than that, and I do not say that that is too much, and he has his half-holiday, good conditions of employment, annual holidays and everything else. Yet Senator Baxter thinks that the way to prosper farming and the country generally is to give no concession to the poor fellow who remains on the farm. If the case were to be put to any reasonable judge, he would be inclined to say that the man who remains on the farm must be a kind of omadhaun when his brother who goes to the city can earn £6 and £7.

I would like to see workers remaining on the land. Agriculture is our main industry. Farmers and farm labourers are the backbone of the nation. The Dáil and Seanad could adjourn until next June, until the next Budget would be required, and the nation would carry on but if the farm workers sat down next spring we would all die of hunger next year. They are the most important section within the nation and yet there is a member of this House who states that they are not entitled to a half-holiday or should not get a half-holiday. He views with amazement the fact that we have a Minister for Agriculture who would bring forward such a Bill. It is a devilish statement to be made by any Senator and I protest against it in the strongest possible manner. I feel such a statement so keenly that it has put me off the points I should like to make.

I want to thank the Minister for bringing in an amending Bill. If there is any little further amendment, we who support Labour will appreciate it as I am sure every Senator will. We have heard a great deal about the flight from the land. That flight is due to conditions on the land. Speaking now as a farmer, I say that farmers were never better off than they are, or got better prices for their produce. I do not say that they are in a position to give very big wages but I say with all sincerity that if they are not in a position to give to their workers big wages and the holidays and conditions of employment enjoyed by industrial workers, they should be put into a position to do so, or if not, be subsidised to that end. Why should any man work in the field and produce for the other people who have four times and six times his wages and salaries? Industrial workers will get further increases while the farm labourer who produces their food is not able to have a half-holiday. I am glad that that position is about to be remedied.

I welcome the Bill. While it does not give much to the farm labourer, it will show him that the members of the Oireachtas recognise his sad plight. Senator Baxter stated that the farm labourer in this Bill is getting a month's holidays. I would suggest to Senator Baxter that if he has in employment any farm labourer and if he makes an offer to him of a half-holiday or a month's holiday that he would take the month's holiday. I would be glad if we could afford to give the farm labourer a month's holiday. Unfortunately, I will not live to see the day when that will be possible but I hope that younger people will live to see it. Some agricultural labourers hardly ever went to school; some of them were practically illiterate, but they were highly intelligent men and by their skill converted an acre that had a grazing value of £4 or £5 into land that produced £60 of food for the nation. They were honest men. 999 out of any 1,000 farm labourers would never leave a field and see the crops going to waste. They are too honest and too scrupulous. It is a tragedy that they are a class that is dying out. I know that in County Dublin they are as honest and as anxious about their employer's prosperity as their employers are and in many cases more anxious than members of the employer's family.

We must all give credit to Deputy Dunne for introducing a Private Bill. I am sorry that there was a flaw in that Bill but I am glad that the Minister has rectified it.

In public life we want honesty and truth. I do not mind who it is that does anything to benefit the most deserving class, I am prepared to give him credit. On the other hand, I do not care who the man may be who tries to put down the workers—I am speaking as a person who has worked with every class—any man is wrong who gets up and takes advantage of membership of this House to make little of the workers and to say that this is a city of laziness. I say that it is an untruth and that the workers of the city do not deserve that. You will find isolated cases of slackers.

In all sections of workers you will find an odd slacker. The majority of the Irish working-class people want work and wages and there is no blame to them for looking for conditions of employment, particularly when they see how soft others get money and good conditions of employment. Irish workers went to America, England and Scotland and not only did they earn enough to support themselves but they earned what kept their parents in reasonable comfort at home in Ireland. Their greatest enemy never said of them what has been said in this House this evening—that they were lazy. I resent it and I say that it is an untruth.

Mr. Commons

If we are to give credit to somebody for introducing the principle of half-holidays for agricultural workers, in fairness, Deputy Seán Dunne is the name that first comes to mind. I am glad to see that the flaws in the Bill that he introduced are being rectified because an agricultural worker is as entitled to a half-holiday as anybody else. As a small farmer who rarely could afford to employ any farm labour, and coming from a county of such farmers, I feel that this Bill is legalising something that is already in existence.

We admit the agricultural labourer had no authority to claim a half-holiday but for many years past the average farmer has never denied him a half-day to go here or there so long as the farmer was treated respectfully, and he kept the closest co-operation between them. Farming is a seasonal type of work and it is hard to have fixed hours or fixed regulations.

In the dairying section this will be a most unpopular measure. The farm labourer is as industrious a worker as anyone else, but in nine cases out of ten he is not one bit more hardworking than his employer. He receives honest pay for an honest week's work but it falls on the employer to bear all the burdens and headaches of management. On Sunday mornings and Sunday evenings you often find farmers and their sons have a harder life than any other type of worker in the country. Dairy farmers will not give this Bill as good a reception as it may get in other parts of the country. In the mixed tillage areas it will be different. In that case there is much to be done in the springtime and in the summer there is the haymaking and then the harvest; but in the winter it slackens off and then the amount of work done by everyone drops considerably. It is difficult to know in such cases whether it is right or wrong to introduce a Bill of this kind, which may cut across the good friendship and good fellowship between farmer and employee.

However, we have this Bill before us and a high percentage of the members of the Oireachtas, here and in the Dáil, are in favour of it, so it is only right that it should get its chance and that the workers should get the half-holiday. It is hard to compare the agricultural worker with the industrial worker who starts at a certain hour in the morning and continues practically the same type of work day in and day out, week in and week out. The industrial worker has regular hours and in wet or fine weather he can attend to his bench and screw on nuts or weld pieces together or cut clothing. It is work of a regular type which he can quite at 12.30 or 1 o'clock and start again at 2 o'clock. Even if there is snow he can put in the same volume of work. That cannot happen on a farm.

In the summer time the agricultural worker has to deal with the harvest but if the morning is wet he cannot touch it until the day clears up and the farmer must find something else for him to do. Very often he is not asked to do any other work, or if he works around the farmyard his labour does more harm than good. On the whole, when the weather is bad he has an easy time. Against that, when the day turns fine and the rush is on, he must put his shoulder to the wheel and work much harder than the industrial worker. If he is a conscientious worker—and with few exceptions they all are—he must bend his back and do more than a man's share. He does that knowing it may not be so hard the next day, as there may be some break in the weather or something else wrong. It is one of the peculiarities of agriculture that we are not faced with in industrial life.

In 99 cases out of 100 at present every agricultural worker enjoys the confidence of his employer and, except on some very large farms where there are regular hours of employment, they are never regimented to the last hour of the day. The worker can have an easy time for an hour or two one day and an hour the next. The industrial worker in the machine shop cannot have that. His work is before him on the bench and he must keep up a certain amount of production and go at the same pace the whole time. The farm work varies according to the season and cannot be compared with industrial work.

It is only fair now to let the agricultural labourers get the half-holiday. They may not have the headaches or burdens that their employers have, but they do honest work, they are the lowest paid type of labour in the State and they are as much entitled to the half-holiday as anyone else. Under this Bill they have the option of not accepting the half-holiday, of working for the employer instead. I would much prefer to see, instead of this half-holiday Bill, the system of working carried on as at present, with security given to the farmer to enable him to pay them a much better wage.

Mr. Baxter

Hear, hear!

Mr. Commons

Instead of doing that, we expect a good young man to continue to stick working on a farm for £4 or £4 10s. 0d. a week, when he could go into any small town where there is a scheme of county council houses or other building work and get almost double those wages for the same hours. Our aim should be, not so much to regimentalise the workers in agriculture as to give their employers an opportunity to pay a much better wage. Personally, while I welcome the Bill and support it, I make no secret of my belief that in many cases, practically without exception, the good fellowship that exists between farmer and employee was accepted as good enough by the vast majority of agricultural labourers.

Take the man who had a house on his employer's land. How many perquisites does he get that the industrial worker does not get? He has free milk —no farmer would see his labourer's family short of milk—he has potatoes, fuel and a garden for vegetables. In many cases, I know fairly large and extensive farmers who do not begrudge to their labourers, as well as wages, the grazing of a cow to supplement the milk supply. That is a system of good fellowship. Whether this legalising of the actual conditions under which the men work will be successful or not I do not know. However, we are accepting this measure and I hope it will be successful.

Mr. S.T. Ruane

I regret I cannot speak with the experience of a farmer, yet I am all out to give the agricultural labourer his half-holiday. I come from a county where you could count on the fingers of two hands the people who are in a position to employ farm labour. I had not the opportunity of coming in contact with such labourers, as Senators in other counties have done. I quite agree with the viewpoint of those Senators who stated that this proposition will not work out so easily as in other employments. That is pretty evident, as Senator Commons pointed out.

The success of this Bill depends not so much on the regulations as on the mutual co-operation between employer and employee. If they co-operate, this legislation will be a success. I am sorry that the vast majority of farmers cannot have a half-holiday for themselves, but that is beside the question. Those in a position to employ labour have, in most cases, good relations with their workers. I am satisfied that the passing of this Bill will not worsen those relations and that the spirit of co-operation, the interest and concern of the labourer for his employer and the interest on the part of the employer in the labourer's comfort will continue after this Bill has been carried into effect.

Mr. Meighan

Coming from an area where very little employment is given to farm labourers, where the majority are small farmers who do not employ many agricultural workers, I feel I must agree with everything that Senator Commons has said, and it is only necessary for me to dot his Is. and cross his Ts. I would like to emphasise the point he made about the regimentation of hours and the reasons which he has put forward very forcibly. That point applies especially to hay making and harvesting times. There are parts of the day and parts of the week when the weather has been bad and—with the exception of this year— that has been a nightmare for farmers for years past. If agricultural workers are legally compelled to work those hours and there is a strict code of regimentation laid down, it will not be good. It would be a pity to interfere with the old principle.

I speak with experience of 40 or 50 years of living amongst those people and I can vouch for the co-operation that existed between the workers and their employers. Very few employers ever left their workers or their families short of milk. If necessary, they had a small place for a garden and were never denied the use of a plot of land, a rood or half an acre, to till. I speak from personal experience of the feelings that exist between them. I have never seen places where those workers have been separated from the farmer's family at the family table. I know from people in dairying districts that it is the farmers in those districts who will have the greatest difficulty, especially in the case of milking large herds of cows. I do not know what can be done. There is a growing disinclination, even amongst farmers' sons, to do this work on Sundays. If things get worse in that respect and unless we can rely on milking machines, I am afraid the general population will suffer in the absence of a supply of fresh milk at week-ends.

I welcome the principle of the Bill and feel there is not a farmer in the country who would refuse a half-holiday on account of any monetary loss. The main difficulty is probably the great inconvenience it may cause in dairying districts and the trouble it may cause through regimentation in other districts.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

The general principle of a weekly half-holiday for agricultural workers was freely accepted and there was not any serious opposition to it in this House when the 1950 Act was introduced. I did not object to the general principle in the 1950 Act and, therefore, I am not objecting to the general principle of the Bill now introduced, although I will say that in the 1950 Act I was responsible for an amendment which I thought improved the Act in the hope of making it more workable.

The approach to a measure like this should be to make it more workable having regard to the interests of the agricultural employers and the agricultural workers. I think it was in that spirit that the 1950 Act was met in this House. I should hope that it is in that spirit that this Bill will be approached. Since that is the case in regard to this Bill it is hardly the best thing for Senator McCrea to try to score just a little point by offering a reason why the Fianna Fáil Party acted as it did when the 1950 Act was passing through the Dáil. Many people might be inclined to suggest reasons why that happened, but surely the most practical, the most sensible and, indeed, the real explanation would be that the Minister for Agriculture was not prepared to sponsor that measure and that then the onus would be put on the Fianna Fáil Party in putting the measure into operation.

Senator McCrea knows that quite well. That is why the present Minister should be congratulated. At any rate he is practical. There seemed to be quite a lot of window-dressing in relation to the 1950 Act. It was within the competence and ability of the promoters of the 1950 Act to insert some little section like Section 12 of the present measure whereby officers of the Agricultural Wages Board may take proceedings on behalf of a worker. That was not done.

When Senator McCrea made that suggestion I am inclined to reply by saying at this stage that there was a lot of window-dressing in connection with the 1950 Act. I repeat that nothing was done, such as putting in Section 11 or Section 12 which is inserted in this Bill and which has the effect of making the measure one that will work in practice.

The agricultural workers are just as well entitled to a half-holiday as any other group of workers. It is unfortunate surely that in many cases the wage level and the working conditions of agricultural workers are not as good as you would find in comparable employment outside rural areas. I agree with the sentiments expressed by Senator Commons that the good relationship which exists between the agricultural workers and their employers will continue. I hope that this measure, while improving the conditions of the agricultural workers, will also ensure the continuance of that good relationship.

There is one other matter to which I would like to refer. I did not hear Senator Baxter speak. I have often clashed with Senator Baxter. We often say things to each other. We often attack each other. I do not think I had ever occasion to say to him or he to me the things Senator Tunney said to him.

Mr. Baxter

I did not take much notice of that.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

I am not in a position to judge as to whether these remarks were deserved or not. Senator Baxter may be regarded by some of us as a reactionary, but assuming that he is so, I do not think I would be disposed to say the things that Senator Tunney said about his colleague.

Mr. Baxter

Does the Senator think I would know as much about the agricultural labourer as Senator Tunney?

Mr. P. O'Reilly

I am not prepared to accept that either; Senator Baxter or Senator Tunney would be the final authority on that matter. I feel that the Minister should be congratulated as he is in practice ensuring that some Act that has been passed is improved and made operative. As I have said, nothing was done under the 1950 Act to ensure that it could work in practice. It is an undesirable thing for a legislature to legislate without ensuring that the legislation works in practice. In that sense the Minister is to be congratulated on ensuring that power is taken under the Act to see that it works.

Mr. Burke

I opposed the original measure when it came before the House in 1950. In opposing it I thought it was not practicable. I am opposing this measure for exactly the same reason. In the province of Munster what has happened in almost every case is that the farmer is paying his labourer for the half-day. I suggest to the Minister that the matter could be better met by the Agriculural Wages Board increasing the wages than by giving the men a half-day.

This half-day can be the source of contention between the farmer and the farm worker. We all admire the wonderful comradeship they have shown through the land struggle and the way they worked together. They showed a real example of Christian neighbourliness. Do not let any town-inspired demagogues come along and suggest that the farmer and the farm labourer are not able to do a good job in their own vocation, because they are. I believe that the farm worker is probably the most responsible worker that we have in this nation.

Many of the farm workers look after farms for their owners. They look after valuable stock and crops and they must know all about crop rotation. They must know the elements of veterinary attention in relation to animals. I believe they are about the most highly skilled class of workers in the whole community. The one regret I have is that they are not getting a fairer share of the national income.

I would like to point out to the Minister—I am sure he is aware of the figures already—that it is shown in the Irish Statistical Survey recently published that the net income from Irish agriculture is £143,000,000. That would mean less than £2 per head per week for everybody living by agriculture in this country. How can we in towns impose conditions on that vocation while it is our duty to help to increase the income from agriculture?

I would further like to point out that this survey shows that the agricultural community are the main producers of wealth and embrace half the population. In round figures they get approximately 30 per cent. of the total national income.

That is maldistribution. It is not distributive justice. The greatest enemies of distributive justice are the people in the towns who believe in working for short hours under good conditions. Those who believe in permanent and pensionable jobs, retiring at an early age and working short hours during that period are all taking some of the difference between 30 per cent. and at least 50 per cent. which the agricultural community are entitled to get.

We will not improve their position until there is a change of heart between the people who live in the towns and those working in other vocations in the country. The greatest national need is for increased agricultural production. I believe we can only get that by a change of heart on the part of the whole administration of this country and all those people who are working in the secondary industries. Those who work on the land are the most important economic factor in the nation. Let us not give them sops like half-days which they themselves find are not really practicable.

I know that in our area, in South Tipperary and North Waterford, the farmers are paying the men for the half-day and it is not recognised. In conclusion, I think the Minister could deal with that situation much better and much more realistically through the Agricultural Wages Board than he can deal with it by the Bill he has now brought before the House.

Mr. Walsh

I must thank Senator Hayes for his approach to this Bill. He welcomed the principle of it. In the other House, when I had this Bill before it, I had an assurance from Deputy Sweetman on behalf of the Fine Gael Party that it had that Party's approval, but I was amazed when I came into the Seanad this evening to find a representative of the farming community, in the person of Senator Baxter, getting up and making an unwarranted attack on the agricultural workers.

Mr. Baxter

I did nothing of the kind.

Mr. Walsh

I am a farmer, the same as Senator Baxter and I have as much experience of farm labourers as he has. I have known them all my life and I have worked with them and it would be unfair of me if I stood up without registering my protest against the unwarranted attack made on them. We have heard a lot about the front line trenches during the emergency period. Who were the people who manned these trenches? Who were the people who fed the people in our towns and cities? The farmers were unable to do it themselves. They had to get assistance, and where did that assistance come from? That assistance came from one section of the community— the agricultural workers.

I have made the statement on many occasions that the agricultural worker was the worst paid individual in this country and I reiterate that statement to-night. I also state that if it were within my province, while I am Minister for Agriculture, to place him in his proper sphere, the sphere in which he should be, he would be in a sphere up above any other workers we have.

I see no reason—I have already made the statement—why a road worker, a forestry worker, a builder's labourer should be entitled to a higher wage than an agricultural worker and why better conditions should be provided for the men in these categories. Consequently, I make no apology to anybody for bringing in this Bill to provide a half-day for the agricultural worker. Neither was it necessary to push me to bring it in.

When the Bill of 1950 was being discussed, we in the Fianna Fáil Party refused to vote for it on Second Reading, not because we did not approve of it and not because we did not agree with it, in principle, but simply because the Government of the day refused to sponsor the measure and refused to make provision for its operation, if it did become law. That was the reason. There are in this Bill three sections, Sections 8, 11 and 12, which make provision for putting this Bill into operation. When the Second Reading was passed, the Bill went to a Select Committee and I was one of the members of that committee. I did my best, and so did my Fianna Fáil colleagues, to make that Bill workable, and, when we brought it back to the Dáil in the form in which it was then, we thought that, even at that stage, it would have been accepted and sponsored by the then Government, and we voted for it. It was not made operative simply because no machinery was made available for putting it into execution and that is the reason it was necessary for me, in 1952, to bring forward a measure to give a half-holiday to the agricultural worker.

Mr. Baxter

Why did you not ensure that on the Committee Stage of the 1950 Bill?

Mr. Walsh

It was not within our province to do it.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

Why did the Labour Party not——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister is in possession.

Mr. Walsh

It was not within our province to do it. There is such a thing in connection with the Bills as a Money Resolution and it is only a Minister who can move such a Resolution. That was well known to the then Government and the then Minister for Agriculture. There is no use now in people who supported that Government at that time getting up and trying to make excuses in a wishy-washy way for their actions on that occasion. Senator Baxter must still believe that the same conditions should obtain on the farm for agricultural workers as obtained 50 and 60 years ago. We know that at that time agricultural workers were regarded as serfs and slaves.

Mr. Baxter

By whom?

Mr. Walsh

By everybody.

Mr. Baxter

By their employers? That is untrue.

Mr. Walsh

By everybody in the country.

Mr. Baxter

You should be ashamed to say it.

Mr. Walsh

By everybody in this country.

Mr. Baxter

They were never serfs to the farmers and no farmer should say it.

Mr. Walsh

They were the lowest individuals in this country 50 or 60 years ago. They were hewers of wood and drawers of water and they were never compensated for their services to this country. I am glad, as a farmer. to be the Minister for Agriculture who introduced this measure to place the agricultural worker in his rightful position. Senator Baxter surely does not suggest that the agricultural worker should be kept in the same position as he was in at that period, when he had to go, hat in hand——

Mr. Baxter

To whom?

Mr. Walsh

To everybody.

Mr. Baxter

To his employer?

Mr. Walsh

To everybody, without distinction.

Mr. Baxter

To his employer?

Mr. Walsh

Yes, to his employer as well. That was the condition that obtained, as Senator Baxter and every other Senator must know as well as I know.

Mr. Baxter

It is not true.

Mr. Walsh

It is true, and if it were not for the help and assistance which the agricultural workers gave to the farmers, large and small, down through the years, this country would not be even as good as it is to-day. It is the duty of any Minister for Agriculture, if he has any regard for agriculture, if he wants to improve agriculture and increase production, to make conditions in agriculture equally as good as they are in any other industry, and, unless that is done, we are still going to have that flight from the land of which we have evidence all around us. Why have we that flight from the land?

Is it not due to the conditions and amenities obtainable in other employment? You have the flight here to the City of Dublin where houses are being built. For whom are you building these houses? You are building them for the people who flew from the land five or six years ago. You are continuing to build them and will continue to build them until conditions on the land are made equally as good for workers on the land as they are for the persons engaged in building houses.

That is why I say that unless and until conditions are made as good on the land as they are in other employment you will have a continuation of that flight. You have the amenities of your towns and cities—water, light, amusements, dance-halls and cinemas and that sort of thing. What amenities has the agricultural worker? To-day he has got some of them, of course, because rural electrification has brought them to him, but now he will have this additional amenity of a weekly half-holiday, to which he is entitled. In getting that he is not getting anything more than his brother who is working in the forests or on the roads. It has been suggested that this measure is going to have a depressing effect on agricultural production but I do not agree that it is going to have any such effect.

The weekly half-holiday has been in operation in a number of counties for a number of years and it has not done any harm, nor is it going to do any harm now. There are provisions in this Bill whereby if the farmer and the workers agree the worker will not get the half-holiday. It is not enforceable if agreement between the two parties is reached that the half-holiday will not be taken and that the worker will, instead, be paid for it. If the half-holiday is given on farms with, say, two, three or four men, it can then be staggered.

Mr. Baxter

Suppose there is only one man employed?

Mr. Walsh

If there is, that also can be arranged. The number of hours can be arranged by mutual agreement. It does not necessarily follow that there are fixed hours if there is mutual agreement between the employer and employee.

One would imagine from some of the statements made that we were going to have a revolution in the country, a sort of war between the agricultural worker and the farmer just because the workman is to be given a weekly half-holiday. We are not going to have any such thing, nor are we going to have less production as a result, Senator Baxter knows as well as I do that often in the month of November neither the workman nor the farmer can go into the fields.

Mr. Baxter

But the workman would be paid all the time and you are going to bring that to an end.

Mr. Walsh

That has not been responsible in the past for any reduction in agricultural production because provision was made for it. It has been known that for periods of three months no work could be done.

Mr. Baxter

And again the men were paid all the time.

Mr. Walsh

And yet even in those circumstances the time was made up and there was no reduction in production and this half-holiday is not going to interfere with it either.

I was surprised when Senator McCrea talked about the principle being re-established in my mind of giving a half-holiday to farm workers. I never lost the principle of giving that half-holiday, so I do not see that it would ever have to be reintroduced into my mind. If I had not always believed in the principle of a half-holiday for agricultural workers, then I would never have introduced this measure.

The only question to be answered here during the debate is the question of principle. Senator Baxter opposed the principle of giving this half-holiday and so did Senator Burke. These are the only two people, I think, who opposed it. Senator Hayes welcomed the Bill on behalf of those on that side of the House.

Mr. Baxter

He was speaking for himself. We are not steamrolled down to the level that they are at the other side.

Mr. Walsh

It is most remarkable, but you seem to come under the one cloak when you come into the House and have an opportunity of expressing your opinions.

Professor Hayes

We can combine unity with diversity.

Mr. Walsh

There appears to be diversity of opinion.

Mr. Hearne

They are agreed on nothing except to down Fianna Fáil.

Professor Hayes

We are wandering away from the poor farm labourers.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister must be allowed to continue.

Mr. Walsh

I ask the Seanad not to accept the statements made by Senator Burke and Senator Baxter who, on reflection, I am sure will regret the statements they made and who, on reflection, I know also will not find the difficulties which they thought to be in this Bill. It is a workable Bill and it is not going to do any harm to agriculture or to agricultural production because we can now have more satisfied people prepared to remain on the land for the simple reason that they are now given a place in society equal to that of other workers. That is about all that this Bill gives to this section of the community, which is the only section that has so far been denied the weekly half-holiday.

I thought that Senator Baxter might have said that the farmers were not getting it, but he did not. It is true to say that the last section of workers to get this privilege were the agricultural workers and it is my pleasure to introduce the Bill which gives it to them and to ask this House to pass the Bill as it stands with the amendments which I will introduce at a later Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, December 10th, 1952.

The Seanad adjourned at 8.20 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, December 10th, 1952.