I wish to call attention to the very evident fact that this is something tantamount to the mountain in labour bringing forth the mouse. After an expenditure of £1,200 or £1,300 that is badly wanted in this country, the League of Nations comes along and gives its blessing to a law that already exists in this country.
GENEVA LABOUR CONVENTION.
|
Mr. FITZGERALD: I beg to move:Go molaidh Dáil Eireann don ArdChomhairle daingniú do dhéanamh thar cheann Shaorstáit Eireann ar an gConvensiún i dtaobh “Cearta Co-Chumain agus Co-cheangail do Lucht Oibre Talmhan” agus “Cúiteamh do Lucht Oibre Talmhan,” rud le n-ar ghlac an Chodháil Oibreachais i nGeneva ar an 12adh Samhain, 1921, agus 'na bhfuil a théarmaí leagtha amach sua sceidil a ghabhann leis seo. |
That Dáil Eireann recommend the Executive Council to ratify in respect of Saorstát Eireann the Convention concerning “The Rights of Association and Combination of Agricultural Workers” and “Workmen's Compensation in Agriculture” adopted by the Labour Conference at Geneva on the 12th November, 1921, the terms of which are set out in the schedules hereto.” |
This matter effects no change in the law in this country. Roughly, it was decided at the Conference of the International Labour Bureau in 1921, held in Geneva, that agricultural workers should have the same right of association and combination as that possessed by industrial workers. Under the present law in Ireland there is no differentiation, and both sets of workers have the same right of association and combination. The Second Schedule merely states that workmen's compensation should operate in favour of agricultural labourers as well as in favour of industrial workers. That is the situation in Ireland at present, and the Dáil is merely asked to recommend the Executive Council to ratify this Convention, which makes no difference in the existing law here.
On a point of order, has the motion been seconded? If not, I beg to second it.
The motion is before us. We will take it that the Minister has a seconder in the Dáil.
I will second it. I do not want to oppose the provision in this Convention. I am absolutely opposed to this League of Nations business. There was no necessity for the representatives of this nation to go to Geneva to ratify a law that is already in existence in this country. It was an absolute waste of money that is badly required in this country. There are plenty of people in my part of the country existing on one meal a day, while hundreds of pounds are being wasted on receiving a blessing from internationalists in Geneva for a law already existing. I suppose there will be £800 more wasted in printing and distributing this, while our own people remain at home starving.
I would like to say a word in opposition to the view expressed by Deputy McBride. I had the impression that he was one of those who in the past held the view that Ireland was more than a parish and ought to have some regard to the influence of other nations upon Ireland and of Ireland upon other nations. Apparently that was a mistake. The views of Deputy McBride regarding Irish nationality were only intended to express a vague opinion without any regard to the purpose which a recognition of nationality might effect. The Convention that is now before us undoubtedly is, as he says, a formal ratification or approval of something which has to be applied internationally which already exists here. I would ask the Deputy and all those interested in this and similar questions, to bear in mind that when an International Conference is held and proposals are agreed to that will have the effect of levelling up the most backward nations, these Conventions and proposals must be ratified by the separate countries. But there is a very positive value to this country to have a Convention of this kind approved of by other countries which have not hitherto adopted the same kind of legislation.
We have heard—and I do not know whether Deputy McBride will agree with Deputy Milroy and others—that there is a disadvantage and a handicap on Ireland when Ireland's products are competed against by countries having more backward conditions. Here is a positive attempt made to level up conditions regarding labour, regarding employment in agriculture in all countries, to that level which has been attained, as is admitted, by Ireland. Surely it would be an advantage to Ireland if these other competing countries are going to be brought into agreement in regard to the level of conditions under which the people in these countries are working? You are lessening the handicap, and I say that is a positive value. We will find, I have no doubt, as time goes on, probably in the very near future, that conventions similar in their purpose will be brought before the Dáil with a view to confirmation. And I would hope there will be a continually increasing number of Conventions of this kind, which are going to be approved of by those other countries, gradually raising the level of conditions to the level of the highest. I would hope that it would be a continual improvement, and therefore that a continual succession of Conventions of this kind will be brought before us. I say that is a positive value, and should be welcomed by every person who feels that Workmen's Compensation Acts, and other matters dealing with conditions of labour, are a burden upon the employers in these industries. That is alleged, very often without good ground; but once we have adopted such legislation, surely it is to our advantage that other countries which are competing should be induced to adopt similar legislation. That is what is done by this kind of Convention, and that is why I hope Deputy McBride's belittling of the efforts of the League of Nations in regard to labour affairs will not be received with any approbation by the Dáil.
I would like on this occasion to support in every way possible what Deputy Johnson has said on this matter. I think the world's progress in the future rather lies in these international communications afforded by the meetings that take place through the League of Nations. To-day it is in its infancy; but in future years, I should think and hope, that international status for the improvement of the social welfare of the people of the different countries will make substantial progress. The value of the work done should not, I think, be measured in pounds, shillings and pence. Deputy McBride has, I think, made an ill-timed contribution to this matter. Even on the basis of his argument, that this costs money, the Convention we are asked to ratify is dated the 12th November, 1921, and that, I think, was before Ireland had entered into the League of Nations at all. I take it, therefore, that Ireland has not been contributing towards the expenses of this particular Convention. As regards the Convention itself, the main principle is the right of the workers in any particular industry to combine. I think that the future safety of all countries lies in the workers being educated, and in voluntarily accepting not only the benefits they can obtain by what may be called trades unions or combined effort for the improvement of their social status, but also in the steady and increasing realisation of the responsibilities they must have in connection with the countries in which they are operating. That, I think, will be of gradual growth. To-day we sometimes look upon actions of trade unions and of the men themselves as arbitrary and as not realising the importance of the actions they indulge in. Let us all hope that we are marching, if only gradually, towards a more perfect state of things, when the workers themselves will realise that industrial strife is just as destructive as other forms of strife, and that in their own interests real progress will lie in the different parties joining together to make the best of things as they are.
Question put and agreed to