Vol. 54 No. 19
Before we take up consideration of the Report Stage of this Bill, I should like to indicate that I have ruled that Amendment 1, standing in the names of Senators Davidson and Murphy, is out of order on the grounds that it is outside the scope of the Bill as read a Second Time. The Senators have been notified accordingly.
Bill received for final consideration.
I am not quite sure of what I am allowed to say at this stage, but I should like to say that while the Bill is welcomed for whatever improvement it may bring to a very restricted number of workers, it is very much to be regretted that the Minister did not take the opportunity to include the large number of agricultural workers who through the definition of "agricultural employer" in earlier Acts are denied the protection which these Acts afford.
I should like to ask the Minister if he can say if these agricultural workers who, because they work for nonagricultural employers, are denied the benefits of the Bill will be covered in any other way. Can the Minister say, for instance, if it is the intention that they should be covered by the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1961, as they are not covered by the exemption contained in Section (1) (b) of that Act?
In this age when the importance of our agricultural industry is being stressed more and more, it is deplorable that the workers in this industry are so badly treated and given so grudgingly the things that industrial workers have enjoyed for years. If we paused for a moment we could draw up a list of professions, occupations and callings that could be done without, but we would be a sad and sorry populace if we found ourselves in the position that our agricultural workers had disappeared from the countryside.
I would make an appeal to the Minister to examine the position and see if, by regulation or otherwise, he can remove the injustice to a large section of the workers in our most important industry.
I know there are very many of these workers who will be outside the scope of the Bill. Even the employees of the State farms are outside its scope because the Minister is not an agricultural employer. The State employees, however, suffer no hardship because at present they are covered by an agreement with a trade union but that might not always be the case. I would again ask the Minister to look into this very serious shortcoming in the Bill and to be generous to our fine workers in agriculture.
The position in which we find ourselves on this Bill is rather unhappy because we were too co-operative with the Government the last day in giving the Committee Stage.
Tá mé 'mo choladh is ná dúisigh mé.
Béidir gur fearr é.
It would appear to be desirable to allow some little time between the Committee and Report Stages. I am afraid that on other Bills we will be very nervous of giving all Stages or two Stages together.
Our nerves are good.
I do not understand, but, of course, we have to accept it as your ruling, how the amendment in the name of Senator Miss Davidson came to be out of order. I would think that once we were talking about an agricultural employer in Section 2, we would be entitled for the purpose of this Bill to define what we mean by "agricultural employer". It does seem to me that you can have agricultural workers as defined in the Agricultural Workers (Holidays) Act, 1950, engaged in agriculture as defined but they may not be employed by a person who is an agricultural employer as defined in the Act of 1950. That is quite clear. Senator Miss Davidson has given the instance of a person being undoubtedly an agricultural worker, working, say, for the Agricultural Institute and the Agricultural Institute is not carrying on the trade or business of agriculture.
The Senator will appreciate that this is not strictly in order because it is not in the Bill.
With respect, I am talking about an agricultural employer who is in the Bill in Section 2. What interpretation are we to put on that? I think the Bill is defective in that there are no provisions for agricultural workers who will not be engaged or employed by agricultural employers. Therefore, all that section of the agricultural working population will not benefit from this Bill. It is another day's work as to whether they will benefit under the Holiday (Employees) Act which we passed last week. It would be much more intelligible and intelligent to legislate for all agricultural workers in the one Bill, whether they are employed by agricultural employers or persons who are not agricultural employers.
There was criticism on the last occasion as to why this Bill and the Holiday (Employees) Bill were separate and distinct. Whatever justification there may have been for that division between agricultural and industrial workers, there is no basis and no justification for distinguishing between two types of agricultural workers by reference solely to their employer, as is being done in this Bill.
I want to make only one comment in respect of what Senator Miss Davidson said. The farmers whom I meet and know well would like to be able to pay their workers and to be paid themselves as well as the rest of the people in the country. That is the great difficulty. It puts the farmers very much on the wrong foot with regard to an advance in social conditions. I shall illustrate that. Last year, the farmer's income went down by five per cent. and that of everybody else went up by 20 per cent.
That is not relevant on this Stage.
The facts have to be met.
The Senator will have opportunity enough on the platform every Sunday to make that point. He can make it at the crossroads.
You cannot cross it out.
The Senator must realise that they sold more abroad than ever.
Senator Moylan, when Minister for Agriculture, speaking in this House, said that he could not help remarking that in the Seanad we always congratulated the Minister on introducing anything in the House and then proceeded to criticise him immediately afterwards.
As an agricultural employer, I should like to concur in the viewpoint expressed by Senator Miss Davidson because I do not think we have any body of employees who are sounder men and better servants to their employers than the agricultural workers. The maximum in holidays should be theirs because their work is hard.
When skimming over the debate in the Dáil, I remarked that one Deputy wanted to emphasise to the Minister that in the event of Christmas Day falling on a working day and a Sunday coinciding with a Church holiday, some special arrangements should be made. One point was missed in the Dáil— the Minister knows this very well, being a farmer—that an agricultural worker in many cases is dealing with life. He deals with live animals. Therefore, there must be a very clear distinction between an agricultural worker and an industrial worker. You may lay down nice regulations and make everything in the garden seem lovely, but on a farm every day there are eventualities which the smartest farmer cannot anticipate. The Minister was very right in making that more or less clear. There is something to be said for the Labour Party in this country who put up a fight for the agricultural workers because in days gone by the men were very often underpaid.
I am afraid the history of agricultural wages is not relevant on the Fifth Stage of this Bill. This is the last Stage of the Bill.
The only reason I mentioned it at all is that it has not been said and I should like to say it in passing. I should like to join with Deputy Burke in saying that anything that can be done for the Irish agricultural workers to-day should be done. If we do not look after our agricultural workers, who are the backbone of the country, I do not know what kind of workers we will look after.
I should like to put a question to the Minister. I should like, first, to remind him that when the Holidays (Employees) Bill was before the House, we were assured by the Minister responsible for that Bill as to those who would be covered and, on the last occasion we debated this Bill, we were told that anybody who was not covered by the sections of this Bill would be caught by the Holidays (Employees) Act. I would ask the Minister if he can assure the House that the categories of workers to whom Senator Miss Davidson has referred will be covered by this Bill or by the other Act. That would clarify the point for everybody.
My difficulty is that I do not know what type of worker Senator Miss Davidson has in mind, nor do the Agricultural Wages Board know. The Senator who has just spoken has made the position quite clear in the sense that, should it transpire that a worker is not covered by the provisions of this Bill, then that worker is covered by the provisions of the legislation dealing with the other class of work. For that reason, and for several other reasons I could give, if the Chair had not ruled the amendment out of order, I see no purpose at all, even if the amendment had not been ruled out of order, in the amendment. In fact it could not be accepted because it is altogether too loose. One could not make any effort at defining "agricultural employer" under it.
Since the Senators were not allowed to move the amendment and put the case for it, I do not think it would be right if the Minister were allowed to answer the case which Senators were not allowed to make.
I am very pleased that is the situation. It is quite logical but I wanted to give an assurance. Two amending Bills are being considered and they are designed to cover every class of worker. Naturally I was anxious to know what workers Senator Miss Davidson had in mind who were not covered.
The State farm men.
Are they covered?
They are not. You cannot describe the State as an agricultural employer. If Senators wish to confine their complaint to that sort of quibble, I am certainly very pleased that I am not called upon to continue the discussion further.
Would the Minister say what is the position in regard to a retired merchant who employs a person who is an agricultural worker to do agricultural work? The retired merchant is living on his money and he is not an agricultural employer.
The principal point is: is there any worker in the country not covered by the machinery of the two Acts and the two amending Bills? I have stated here that I have it on the best legal advice I can obtain that all such workers are covered and in our experience we know of no case of the type to which the Senator has referred where any difficulty has arisen in the past. Unless some Senator or individual can show or produce evidence that the legal advice and the assurances I am given are not correct—
We can—in the case where a solicitor had an agricultural worker employed. He would not pay him or give him holidays because he was not an agricultural employer. He was a solicitor. It was only under threat of strike that he compromised by paying the man, still loudly protesting that he was not an agricultural employer. There are also institutions that run farms. The workers are not in the employment of agricultural employers; they are outside the scope of the Bill and outside the scope of the Holidays (Employees) Act also. They are not industrial workers.
I have given the assurance and there is not need for me to repeat it.
