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.