I have listened attentively to the discussion that took place on this measure, and one of the most pleasant surprises I have had is that of the complete conversion of colleagues like Deputy Cogan——
Financial Resolutions by the Minister for Local Government—Report. - Agricultural Workers (Weekly Half-Holiday) Bill, 1952—Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
And Deputy Sweetman.
——to the principle of this Bill. I do not want to interfere with the harmony we have had up to the present, but it is a grand thing to have these conversions. When one reads the Division List for the 22nd February, 1951, one finds the name of Deputy Cogan alongside that of Deputy James Dillon. It is a long time since I have seen those two agree— and Deputy Dillon will not misunderstand me when I draw attention to that.
He has accepted the amendment in principle.
The Minister himself appears to have had grave doubts as to the principle in 1951.
Mr. Walsh
None.
Yes, and I will prove it from the records. The Minister spoke here on the Fifth Stage of the 1951 Bill, which was introduced by Deputies Hickey and Desmond of Cork, Deputies Martin O'Sullivan and Seán Dunne. I quote from Volume 124, column 519, when the present Minister for Agriculture was Deputy T. Walsh. He said:—
"We believed in the principle of giving a half-holiday to agricultural workers, and we still believe in it."
Mr. Walsh
Yes.
The same Deputy Walsh declined to vote for the principle then, on the Second Reading of that Bill.
Mr. Walsh
No.
The principle is approved or disapproved on the Second Reading. On that occasion Deputy Walsh led his colleagues out of the House and did not vote for the principle of the Bill.
Mr. Walsh
That is quite true.
I do not want to misrepresent him.
Quote the reasons why.
The Minister will be able to summarise the reasons when he is answering this discussion.
I am sure Deputy Allen will intervene to summarise them.
Deputy T. Walsh, as he then was, said:—
"I am glad this Bill has gone through and I hope that I have contributed something to make it acceptable both to the farmers and to the agricultural workers."
Mr. Walsh
Agreed.
How can the Minister relate that assertion or claim for having made some kind of valuable contribution to the Bill, to the opening speech he made when introducing the present Bill, when he talked about the defects of the 1951 measure, and went on to quote the particular defects he had in mind?
Mr. Walsh
There was one big defect. I will deal with it later.
Having declared his neutrality in 1951 by declining to vote for the principle of the Bill on the Second Reading and having made that contribution to the discussion on it, what is his explanation for not bringing in the present measure since the 22nd February, 1951, now nearly two years ago?
Mr. Walsh
It took a long time to clear up the mess.
What is wrong with the machinery of the Fianna Fáil Government or the Department of Agriculture since the Government came into power? It is quite evident that the Minister had the clear-cut terms of a Bill in mind. He was appointed Minister on the 13th June, 1951, but we are only now dealing with a Bill with which he said he agreed in principle and in every other respect so long ago. Will he explain that or give the cause of the hold-up of this measure? I am anxious to know whether Deputy Cogan had a finger in the pie, but now that he has made amendment for his past sins I welcome his conversion. As I think it can be reasonably and rightly assumed that we all agree with the principle of this Bill, I appeal to Deputies and to the Minister and his colleagues in particular to make this Bill one that can be worked with the least possible difficulty in its application. Like the Minister himself, I, too, represent a rural constituency. The farmers in both our constituencies are very much alike in outlook and in the treatment of their agricultural labourers generally. The majority of the decent farmers—that is the overwhelming majority of the farmers of the constituency of Leix-Offaly and I would say also of Carlow-Kilkenny from my knowledge of them as neighbours—are anxious to treat their workers in a decent Christian-like way.
The people who oppose this progressive type of legislation in my constituency are the big landlord type of farmers. These are the people who have got to have political common sense hammered into their heads. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister and every Deputy in this House to see that as few loopholes as possible are left in this Bill and that the Bill will operate with the least possible difficulty and hardship.
We are all anxious to increase agricultural production. One of the best means of making that contribution no matter on what side of the House we may sit or what Government or Minister occupies the benches is to try to get the most friendly relations possible between the farmer and his agricultural labourer.
I would draw the Minister's attention to the conditions operating in the Six Counties. We are all anxious to get rid of the Border and one of the best ways in which we can make a contribution in that direction is to level up the conditions of our working class people, the wage earning section of the population, and the people generally in the Republic, with the conditions prevailing in industry and agriculture in the Six Counties.
With half-holidays.
Yes.
Is Deputy Allen for or against this Bill?
I assume the Minister has read the Agricultural Wages Regulation Act of 1939 which operates in Northern Ireland or the Six Counties as we call them. If he has not I would invite him to do so. In particular I would invite him to compare the proposals contained in this Bill with similar proposals contained in the 1939 Act so far as representation on the machinery of the board is concerned. This Bill proposes to extend the powers of the Agricultural Wages Board so as to give them full authority to administer this Bill in whatever final form it may emerge when passed through both Houses of the Oireachtas.
I would invite the Minister to study Section 1 of the Agricultural Wages Regulation Act, 1939, which applies to Northern Ireland and say at a later stage, if he is not in a position to say it when concluding, whether he is prepared to copy what I regard as a model method for the board that will administer a measure of this kind as well as administering the powers already conferred upon them under previous Acts, under the powers that set up the Agricultural Wages Board which was established in 1936.
Neither I, nor my colleagues, regard the machinery of the Agricultural Wages Board as acceptable. In other words, we think that the machinery has not worked in the way it should and I think we made representations to the Minister since he came into office. We certainly made representations to Deputy Dillon when he was Minister for Agriculture in the inter-Party Government.
Mr. Walsh
He never gave it a chance.
I am hopeful that the present Minister will take advantage of the terms of this measure to improve the machinery that will operate and also the powers previously conferred on him. There is a great difference between the wages and working conditions of the agricultural labourer employed by farmers in the Six Counties, provided for under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1939, and the wages and conditions that operate in the Republic.
I am as anxious as anyone to make a contribution to the removal of the Border. This is one of the ways in which we can do that. We ought to see that conditions for the farmers as well as for the agricultural labourers are levelled up at least to the level of conditions which prevail in the Six-County area. I hope the Minister will accept that point of view and study the terms of the section of the Act to which I have referred.
With regard to the Bill itself, I wish to make suggestions to the Minister as to how some of the sections of the Bill might be improved. I do not expect that the Minister will give a reply to these suggestions here and now but I am asking that between now and the Committee Stage the Minister will give them sympathetic consideration as far as he can possibly do so.
With regard to Section 1, the Bill might be improved by the insertion of an amendment making its effects retrospective to the 3rd July, 1951, on which date the Act which is to be repealed by this Bill came into operation.
Section 2 is rather an important definition section but if the Minister agrees to accept my suggestion it would remove doubts in administration of the legislation when the Bill comes into operation. It is suggested that the term "week-day" should be defined as a day which does not mean Sunday. It may appear to be a trivial matter to make that suggestion but any suggestion that would be likely to remove misunderstanding or trouble in the administration of the Act when it becomes law is, I take it, acceptable to the Minister.
Section 4 could be improved by adding a new sentence stating that in the event of the employer failing to fix the week-day on which the half-holiday is to be taken, Saturday should be stipulated as the half-holiday. I think that suggestion would be generally acceptable in the country. I do not claim to boast of any more knowledge on this matter than other Deputies but, as far as I know, the half-holiday would be more acceptable to the farmer employer on that day than on any other day during the week, I will leave it to the farmer Deputies to say whether that is so or not. In any case, where there is a difference between them I hope that it will be limited to a small number of cases. That suggestion might help to make the farmer employer and the agricultural labourer know where they stand in the case of a dispute or a difference of opinion.
According to Section 7 if a worker is allowed a Church or a public holiday with pay under the Act of 1950 he is not entitled to claim a half-holiday for that week. The section also means that if it is the custom in a district for workers to abstain from work on a Church holiday in respect of which they are not paid—that would apply to Deputy Allen's constituency—such workers do not qualify for the half-holiday in respect of that week. The section could be improved by stipulating that only when the worker has been paid for a Church or bank holiday in the week then and only then shall the employer be entitled to exclude the worker from the benefits of the Bill.
With regard to Section 6, the qualifying period of 45 hours is rather severe in our view and in that of those who advise us on matters of this kind. We suggest that a qualifying period of, say, 40 hours might be more appropriate.
It was 50 the last time.
I suppose we are living in a progressive period. Deputy Allen will admit that and I ask him, when speaking on these matters, to relate his outlook on this particular aspect of legislation to what is taking place in industry so far as industrial workers are concerned.
Sections 9 and 10 deal with offences under the Act and prescribe regulations for the recovery of moneys due to a worker in cases where the half-holiday has not been granted. The Minister should note that an officer of the Agricultural Wages Board has not power under the proposed Bill, or under the Holidays Acts, 1950, to enter an employer's premises for the purpose of investigating complaints regarding the enforcement of the Act. Any authority the inspectors have is vested in them under the Agricultural Wages Acts, 1936 and 1945, concerning cases where an under-payment of wages has been alleged. The inspectors cannot enter an employer's premises to investigate a case involving the non-payment of holiday pay, unless there is also a case concerning the non-payment of arrears of wages. The section should be amended in order to clarify the powers of wage board inspectors and to ensure that they will have adequate powers to investigate complaints made pursuant to the proposed Act.
The Bill proposes to confer additional powers on the Agricultural Wages Board. This board has been in existence since 1937, and, unlike other statutory bodies dealing with wages, the trade unions having members in agriculture have not the right to nominate the personnel representing agricultural workers on the board. I was previously endeavouring to point out that the trade unions catering for agricultural labourers in the Six Counties are given that right by the Act I have already mentioned. In 1937, there were no trade unions catering for agricultural workers, but the position is different now. The Agricultural Wages Act of 1939, which operates in Northern Ireland, confers on trade unions having members in agriculture the right to nominate the workers' representatives on the Northern Ireland Agricultural Wages Board. In view of the extensive powers about to be conferred on the Agricultural Wages Board, the Minister should consider modernising the Agricultural Wages Acts.
Mr. Walsh
Why did you not think of all these things a couple of years ago?
On a point of order, what is the Deputy quoting from?
I am quoting from my own notes. The Deputy often has to refer to notes.
And the Minister read his speech introducing the Bill.
Mr. Walsh
Nobody objected to it.
Because, by courtesy, you are allowed to read what you are not able to speak.
I want to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that numbers of agricultural labourers have unfortunately been dismissed by the dictatorial type of employer because they pressed for what they thought was their right to a half-holiday. They were dismissed from their employment in many cases and in many places. I am glad to say that I do not know of one in my own constituency, but Deputy Cogan will not deny that the Federation of Rural Workers is a strong organisation in many constituencies and consists mainly of agricultural labourers. My authority for making this statement is this body which caters for agricultural labourers, a body which is very highly organised in many counties. Will the Minister consider the advisability of taking steps to insert a provision in the Bill to prevent that happening in the future?
It is my hope and, I believe, the hope of Deputy Cogan, who voted against the principle of the Bill on previous occasions and of other Deputies who might have done otherwise, that, when the Bill comes into operation, whether in its present form or with the improvements that can be made with the consent of all Parties and the consent of the Minister, its machinery will be brought into operation with our goodwill and particularly with the goodwill of all the farmer employees in the country. It is for that purpose that I have put forward these suggestions for what we consider would be the improvement of the Bill and I hope that the Minister will give favourable and sympathetic consideration to them between now and the Committee Stage.
I want to congratulate the Minister on introducing this Bill, even though it is a little belated. There is an old saying that a wise man changes his mind very often, but a fool never. I should not like to put the Minister in the latter category, because, although he could not see the light in February, 1951, after making his protest in company with his colleagues and marching triumphantly from the House, we have got this Bill. I should like also to congratulate him on his success in deep-freezing Deputy Cogan since June, 1951.
What about Deputy Dillon and Deputy Sweetman?
Deputy Keane is speaking for himself.
On the Bill.
On the Bill. Apparently, Deputy Cogan has emerged from the refrigerator a better man. I am glad that, although he voted against the principle in 1951, after giving us a picture of the chaos and disorder that would ensue, he now feels that the Bill in principle was right.
I come from a very big dairy area and I am happy to say that, so far as wages are concerned, there was never any trouble there, but there are certain farmers, farmers who find it very hard to break away from tradition—I do not like to call them reactionaries, but I may describe them as being conservative in their outlook—who said that this would interfere greatly with dairy farming. I cannot see how it will. It was argued that the week's holiday would interfere with the dairying farmers. We heard the same pitiable story at the time of the introduction of the Bill providing for a week's holiday and a half-holiday per week for those engaged in industry and in the commercial life of the country. Industry and commerce are still operating satisfactorily. The wheels of industry keep turning. I have no doubt the Minister will be able to convince the farmers, in the same way as the industrialists were convinced, that this Bill will not interfere with production one way or the other.
It will have an effect on production in the dairying industry.
I do not think Deputy Cogan knows very much about the dairying industry. I thought his interests lay in turkeys and things like that. It is true that one wants fresh milk at times for turkeys.
If the Deputy is interested in turkeys, they have gone down 9d. per lb.
Sometimes Deputy Cogan is very interested in red herrings. Deputy Allen is very interested in the dairying industry. He proved that conclusively some years ago.
Would the Deputy come now to the Bill?
If I am interrupted I claim the right to reply.
The Deputy is entitled to speak to this Bill and I am asking him to come to the Bill.
I am speaking to the Bill. Deputy Allen is very interested in the dairying industry and proved his interest conclusively some years ago. The mentality of farmers in different areas is as different as chalk from cheese. The Minister should examine the possibility of making this measure absolutely watertight in so far as interpretation is concerned. Some of us wondered in the past whether the Bill introduced by my colleagues would be implemented to the satisfaction of everybody. The idea was prevalent that by resorting to the courts the worker could establish his claim to a half-holiday.
Mr. Walsh
Does the Deputy not know why the Bill was not operated?
I will admit that I do not.
Mr. Walsh
It was not implemented because the Minister for Agriculture in the Coalition Government made no provision for the money necessary to operate it.
I told the Minister what the opinion was.
Mr. Walsh
That is the answer to the non-operation of the Bill.
The then Minister made no provision?
Mr. Walsh
No.
Surely the question of money does not arise in order to operate a Bill.
There is not a syllable of truth in the Minister's statement.
In Deputy Allen's county recently there was a case in the courts. The workers took legal action. They were beaten in that action and the farmer who employed them locked them out and said he did not want them any more. That hits at the very foundation of democracy.
That man is not a farmer.
I do not know what the Deputy calls a farmer in the YellowBelly County. Apparently the men were farm workers of some description.
Make inquiries. This man is not a farmer.
I do not know anything about him except what I read in the Press.
He is the owner of land.
He is not a working farmer.
The Minister has an opportunity now of profiting by mistakes. I do not know anything about the mechanics of the last Bill. I do not know whether any arrangement had to be made for financing it. At any rate, the Minister can now benefit as a result of that Bill and I hope there will be no necessity for farm workers in the future looking to the courts for redress. This Bill should be such as to be capable of interpretation to the mutual benefit of both employer and employee. I suggest that the hours put forward by Deputy Davin would be better from the point of view of the operation of the Bill rather than those suggested by the Minister.
There should be no reason for any difficulty. The farmers have a duty to their workers. When the Agricultural Wages Board made an award of 5/- per week Deputy Cogan stated that that 5/- extra would make the farmers bankrupt. None of Deputy Cogan's prognostications proved to be correct in that respect. I see no reason why this Bill should cause any animosity between the farmer and his workers. There was no animosity created between the industrial workers and their employer or between the shopkeeper and his assistants when they were granted somewhat similar privileges. The Minister is a farmer himself. He knows the men's point of view. He should have a pretty shrewd idea of the most practical way in which to operate this Bill. I do not think this measure will upset the happy relationship that exists between the farmer and his worker at the present time. I hope the Minister will be ruthless in dealing with those people who try to override progressive social legislation. I suggest that Saturday would be the best day for the half-holiday. I think it would be the most acceptable day from the point of view of the farmer and his workers. It is a pity that Deputy Corry is not present in the House now to make some suggestion in that connection. The reason why I make that statement is that it would appear from some discussion which took place in this House that, as a result of fast drinking on Sunday nights, the agricultural workers in Deputy Corry's area used to have a hangover on Monday mornings. Seriously, however, I suggest that the Minister should empower his inspectors, where there is not an agreement between employer and employee, to insist on Saturday as the day on which the half-day be given.
I hope that the Minister will see to it that the agricultural labourer will be protected so far as his hours of work are concerned. We know what happened in some cases under the Wet-time Order. Some agricultural workers who were not operating on a contractual basis were victimised by their employers. Whenever the employers got a chance of availing of the Wet-time Order they immediately victimised the worker and cut down his wages. As I say, I hope the Minister will look after the interests of the agricultural labourers and I hope that, in turn, the agricultural labourers will give good service to their employers. I trust that the farmers will carry out their part of the transaction.
The agricultural workers are the most important section of the community because every other industry hinges on the agricultural industry. I sincerely trust that both the worker and the farmer will make use of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, to their mutual benefit and to the benefit of the community in general.
I do not believe there will be any great objection to this measure though, for a while, it is possible that the timing of the machinery may be upset somewhat. However, I feel that after a short while everything should work out satisfactorily.
I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that workers may—I say "may"—be victimised in the matter of submitting a report to the inspector or to the Agricultural Wages Board. I should prefer the Minister to consider ways and means by which the onus of responsibility in respect of the submission of reports to the inspector or to the Agricultural Wages Board will not be laid on the worker. I am anxious to avoid any abuse in that connection. Like what happened during the time of the French Revolution, it may so happen that this measure will not operate for the benefit either of the farmer or of the worker. I hope the Minister, with the help of his officials, will be able to hammer out some satisfactory method whereby the onus of submitting reports will not be placed on individuals. Just consider the position of town workers in relation to their half-holiday. If the law is not carried out, action is taken immediately by the Garda authorities. Similarly with regard to the closing of shops at certain specified hours, and so forth. I realise that it would be impossible to carry out the provisions of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, in exactly the same way as the principle of the half-holiday for industrial workers is operated, but I feel that the Minister should make a very determined effort to relieve the worker of the responsibility of reporting his employer.
I desire to conclude by congratulating Deputy Cogan. A lot of people have been under the impression that miracles have ceased, but since Moses struck the rock there has not been such a miracle as Deputy Cogan's silence in this House for more than 12 months on the subject of agriculture.
I feel it would be a waste of time to debate this measure in detail in view of the fact that the Government are committed to the Bill, that the Fine Gael Party are committed to the Bill, having voted for the principle of it some time ago, and that the Labour Party are committed to the Bill.
Personally I think it is unfortunate that we have to legislate in this connection and that people in this House who are not really au fait with agricultural conditions should decide how things should be done in that industry, of which they do not know a great deal. I believe and I have always believed that the agricultural worker is the country's greatest asset. I am satisfied that he has not got his fair share, having regard to the important nature of his work and of its contribution to the nation's economy. I believe that it would be much better to let the farm worker and the farmer decide amongst themselves how best to settle the particular problems that confront them. At present, agricultural workers are scarce and a good agricultural worker can demand fair and reasonable treatment for his work. That being so, I think it would be better to let the farmer and the farm worker come to their own particular agreements.
The agricultural industry is different from any other industry. You can tell an industrial worker in a factory that he must put so many nuts on a bolt in a certain time and that he must achieve a certain output in a certain period. The industrial worker can stop the machine when he wants to do so and his only responsibility is to achieve a certain output in a certain period of time. In agriculture, on the other hand, you are dealing with nature. You are depending on various factors such as the weather, the health of the stock and 101 different things which you cannot control. It must be admitted, therefore, that you cannot apply the same rigid rules to agriculture that you can apply to other industries.
One aspect of this Bill which may affect the dairying industry is that, so far, we have not succeeded in producing the type of cow which can be milked on 5½ days only per week. In certain areas it has become necessary to reduce the size of herds to the extent of the family labour that is available and in certain areas it is impossible to keep more cows than can be milked on Saturday and Sunday evenings by the farmer and his family. The half-day may aggravate that particular problem. The half-day will, of course, also increase costs of production.
I think that the Minister should give a guarantee that any increased costs of production imposed on the farmer by this legislation will be compensated for in some other way. We have had the experience in the past where various costs, resulting from increased facilities for other sections of the community, were put on agriculture and the only thing the farmer got in return for that was a request to take 2d. a gallon less for his milk. We cannot expect to have increased costs piled on the industry while at the same time we are asked to produce more cheaply. The Labour Party I think are rather inconsistent. They are advocating increased costs in every direction—in rates, wages and amenities—and at the same time with the other side of their mouths they are agitating for reduced prices and cheaper commodities. This Bill, which I believe must be passed by the House having regard to the attitude of the Government and the Opposition in the past, is I think a little bit better, or possibly I should say a little more workable, than the Bill introduced by the Labour Party in the last Dáil.
The last time I spoke in this House was in a debate connected with problems affecting dairy farming. I again find myself having to refer to that particular industry in so far as it will be affected by this Bill. We all admit the justice of the claims of the agricultural worker to a living wage and his right to a half-holiday. We admit that he should be put on the same footing as the industrial worker, while I entirely agree with the statement of Deputy Lehane that the conditions under which industrial workers operate are not entirely analogous to those of the agricultural worker. The industrial worker can take his half-holiday at any time he wishes, and there will be others in a position to continue that work just as efficiently as if he were there all the time. Take the case of the dairy farmer. The absence of the hired worker at certain times will seriously impair the continuity of his work. In a very limited area, I know about 11 widows with young families, and these widows are completely dependent upon the agricultural worker to look after the milking of their cows in the morning and in the evening. It is suggested that there should be a specified half-holiday, say on a Saturday, but I hope that such an arrangement will not be rigidly adhered to. I would much prefer to see a feeling of esprit de corps between the farmer and his man as a result of which, by some sympathetic exchange, they could arrange the most suitable day on which the worker could take his half-holiday. I admit, as I say, the justice and the equity of the agricultural worker's claim to a half-holiday, but unless there is a clear and definite understanding, and unless the farmer gets such protection in clear and specified terms in the Bill, that the half-holiday can be granted and taken on the most suitable day by mutual arrangement between the farmer and his man, this concession to the worker will react unfavourably on the industry. I think it should be left to the farmer and his employees to determine the best way in which these holidays can be taken, so as not to impair the efficiency and continuity of the work on the farm.
Take an unfortunate widow, and I have two or three such cases clearly before my mind. The evening may be wet and she is running from the hearth to the door awaiting the return of her three or four little ones from school. That particular day may happen to be the very day which the legislation provides as the day on which the worker must take his half-holiday. There may be 12 or more cows to be milked. You know the very definite way in which cows call to be milked when the time comes. That poor widow, waiting to receive her little ones as they come in, would find it utterly impossible to go out to get somebody to take the place of the man whom she has hired for that definite purpose and whom she is paying reasonably well. What is she going to do in that case? That is a particular case of hardship, a common and recurring condition of things amongst the agricultural community. Should there not be some arrangement whereby the justice of the claim of the worker to his half-holidays would be protected and the interests of the farmer equally protected?
Then take the case of people who farm in a different way, for instance myself. Some years ago I had a good dairy herd, but, owing to difficulties in getting my children away to school and a couple of them to the universities, I abandoned the dairying end and I went in for the raising of store cattle. My quota of tillage had also to be looked after.
Mr. Walsh
I am glad you did that too.
It has been suggested that the afternoon of Saturday should be specified as the half-holiday, but take a week in which there has been a downpour of rain on every day, except Saturday. It may be during the harvest period, and you may have ten or 12 acres of hay on hand. It may be in a very bad condition. Somebody has suggested that the law should specifically provide that the agricultural labourer should go away on the Saturday morning or on the Saturday afternoon after lunch. On that Saturday afternoon, you may have a beautiful sun and wind to dry the hay. If the worker chooses to take his half-holiday on such an afternoon, consider the plight of the farmer.
When I spoke here on the last occasion it was admitted by Ministers and others that agriculture is the basis of our whole economy, that the dairy farmer is a fundamental and integral part of that economy, and that every encouragement should be given to him. I pointed out last July that the dairy industry was in a precarious position because of emigration amongst workers and because of many other adverse factors. A further spanner will be thrown into the wheels of that industry unless an arrangement can be entered into, and recognised by law, between the agricultural worker and his employer under which the half-holiday can be taken at a period which is least harmful to the industry. Could we not provide that the farmer would be at liberty to say to his worker: "Look here, can we make an arrangement under which you will get extra time off at a period of the year when the cows have less milk and there is less work to be done?" Supposing at the end of October, or even the middle of October, the farmer said to his boy and the boy accepted the arrangement: "Look here, I will give you an extra week more than the holidays you are entitled to, if you agree to forgo your half-holiday at rush periods," could there not be a legal basis for such an arrangement? The farmer might say to his worker: "If you consider that a week would not be sufficient I will give you ten days more with the usual holiday if you will continue to work the whole week during the summer months and the early spring." If such an arrangement could be arrived at between the farmer and the agricultural worker, it would be greatly to the interest of the industry.
When the original Bill was introduced, I found myself in the Lobby voting against it. I appreciate very much that the agricultural workers are entitled to just and legitimate consideration: that they are entitled, even though the cases are not quite analogous, in justice and charity to their holidays in the same way as men working in factories or with Messrs. Guinness. I voted against that Bill because of the adverse situation it would create in four or five of the primary counties in the South which depend, almost entirely, on the dairying industry.
The Minister is aware that there are 44 proprietary creameries in my county, and that the incidence of their labour content is very great. I think myself that the introduction of this half-holiday, so far as dairy farmers are concerned and without some alternative arrangement such as I have suggested to overcome the difficulties which must undoubtedly arise, would have a deleterious influence on the dairying industry. I have spoken to quite a number of farmers, particularly those in the dairying industry, about this. The proposal in the Bill, I agree, will not have and could not have such disastrous consequences on other forms of farming as it would necessarily have in the case of the dairy farmer.
I wish to support the Bill. If some such arrangement as I have suggested could be arrived at, it would make things more amicable and would obviate greatly the results which, otherwise, are bound to arise.
It has been rather interesting to hear all the comments which have been made by the Opposition about giving the agricultural worker a weekly half-holiday. Deputy Lehane has suggested that he is our greatest national asset. Yet, in this year of 1952, all we can pay him is £3 12s. per week. Every place I go I listen to people speaking about agriculture and complaining that there is no labour on the land. Deputy Madden, in his speech, which was so full of sentiment, made the same complaint. What I want to ask is, how are we going to keep the workers on the land? Is it by treating them in a manner different from that in which we treat every other class of worker? The office man can get a month's holidays with pay. The industrial worker can get a fortnight's holiday with pay, plus the bank holidays with pay. Will any Deputy tell me why the man who produces the food for the nation cannot get the same treatment as those other workers?
Deputy Lehane says that the Labour Party is quite illogical because we advocate a reduction in the cost of living. We have always advocated that the farmer should get such a price for what he produces as to enable him to pay his workers a decent wage. It is very disheartening to be listening to all this sob stuff about the agricultural worker—that he is our greatest national asset and so on—while at the same time we treat him in the way that he is being treated, and cannot see our way to give him what he is looking for. Deputy Madden talked about the position of widows. I have yet to be told of any agricultural worker who, in an emergency, ever let down a farmer or a widow. I was reared on the land myself though it is a long time now since I left it. I can well understand what is happening. I realise that, within the last eight or nine months, over 6,000 agricultural workers have left the land. If these men have not gone into our cities or large towns, then they have gone to work for English farmers at £4 10s. or £4 15s. for a 48-hour week.
They are getting £5 a week now.
That is so. As regards agricultural workers, I am afraid we are not prepared to face up to the actual position that is confronting the country. The Minister himself is a farmer. I think it is about time that we had someone to deal with the position of the agricultural worker in a much bigger way than is the case at the moment. Deputy Blowick brought in a red herring when he spoke of the small farmers with valuations of £5 or £6, and said that they had no half-holiday. I know that as well as he does. I am prepared to admit that they are the hardest working people in the whole nation, those small farmers, their wives and their families. We have to admit they work on the 365 days of the year.
So do the housewives in the towns and the cities.
I agree. I do not want to see these red herrings brought into a debate in which we are dealing with such a serious matter as keeping our agricultural workers on the land. I remember reading recently a statement made by a Deputy in the Minister's Party in which he advocated a wage of £6 a week for beet workers. It is probable that he got chastised for making such a statement.
He is getting a good price for his milk.
I suggest to Deputy Davin that we should try and deal with these matters in a serious way rather than by using catch words and phrases across the House. The time has come for the Minister for Agriculture and the House to make up their minds that the man working on the land and producing food for the nation is as much entitled to a fortnight's holidays, and the other amenities, as any other worker in the nation. It may seem strange that this statement should come from me in view of the fact that I have been living in a city for the past 39 years. We all know that we have men enjoying a month's holidays as well as bank holidays with pay, and yet the most that we are able to give to the man who produces food for the nation is £3 12s. a week in the County Cork. I wonder does the Minister think, in view of that situation, that the Agricultural Wages Board is properly constituted as it is. Neither the present Minister nor his predecessor was big enough to give the workers the right to representation on that board.
This is a Bill for a half-holiday.
I suggest that to lay down the condition that a man must work for a full week before he can get the half-holiday is unworthy of any Minister and of this House. The proposal is that, if a man works only four or five days in the week, he will not get any half-day for that week. Suppose a man is sick for two days, is he not entitled to be paid for the half day if he works it? I should like the Minister to deal with that when he is replying. I want to see the system of holidays applied to agricultural workers in the same way as it is to industrial workers. They, too, are industrial workers and important ones. There is no need for any Deputy to tell me that small farmers do not get holidays. I know they do not.
There is no use in using that argument to the detriment of the man who is a paid worker. There has been a lot of talk about the understanding that there is between the farmer and his man. I know, as well as the Deputies who have spoken, what the relations are that exist between the farmer and his workers. I know that in many cases, where there are only one or two men employed, the farmer and his men sit at the same table. He will treat them with respect. Let us not, however, blind ourselves to the fact that in many other places the agricultural worker is not treated as a man should be treated by the people who employ him. We should not mix up the decent farmer who respects his worker with other people who employ six or seven workers. We have to make up our minds that the agricultural worker, if he is to be kept on the land, will have to get the same amenities and the same status as the industrial or the clerical worker in the cities.
Mr. Walsh
I am glad to know that the House has indicated its acceptance of the Bill. The only arguments that have been used in opposition to the Bill are face-saving arguments. Deputy Dunne, Deputy Corish, and I might say every member of the Labour Party, got up in order to save their faces and nothing else. That is about all they have been doing. The Bill which was introduced by Deputy Dunne and Deputy Hickey two years ago may have been the best effort they could have made. However, we on this side of the House have been accused of not supporting that Bill. We did support the Bill. It was only after discovering that the Fine Gael Party and the Coalition would not support it on its Second Reading that we did not support it, because we asked what was the attitude of the Government towards it. As is usual in cases like this where a Bill is introduced by a private Deputy, if it gets a Second Reading it is then adopted by the Minister responsible. But in this case the Minister refused to adopt the Bill and by refusing to do so he made Deputy Dunne's Bill inoperative. Is not that quite true?
Explain that. By refusing to adopt the Bill he made the Bill inoperative?
Mr. Walsh
Yes, because there was no Money Resolution proposed by the Minister. That is the reason. There was no one to put it into operation.
You voted for it, and you knew that?
Mr. Walsh
I did not know the Minister was going to refuse. You had two Labour Ministers and a Parliamentary Secretary in that Government. You were a Coalition, and why did you not get them to do it? You were as meek as mice. I voted for the Bill.
On the Fifth Stage.
Mr. Walsh
These are the facts, but you will not accept them. Then I had to come along at a later stage and clear up the mess that had been created by Deputy Dunne and the other Deputies.
You are a great man.
Mr. Walsh
I succeeded in doing it, whether I am a great man or otherwise. It is right to say that we, in the Fianna Fáil Party, supported the Bill.
The principle of the Bill?
Mr. Walsh
Not merely did we support the principle of the Bill, but we went into the Committee in order to make the Bill better than it was when it was introduced by Deputy Dunne. We were the people, and not Deputy Dunne, who were responsible for putting it through this House. Look up the personnel of the Select Committee which dealt with the Bill and you will find who was responsible. Now, because the Coalition Ministers, and particularly the Minister for Agriculture, refused to adopt that Bill, it was made inoperative. There was no one to operate it. Notwithstanding that, Deputy Dunne went down even to my own constituency and told the farm labourers whom he was addressing that this Bill was in operation and that every one of them was entitled to a half-holiday.
Do you deny that?
Mr. Walsh
I say you said it.
Do you deny it?
Mr. Walsh
You said that every one of them could force the farmers to give them a half-day. The Deputy was going to enforce it when there was no machinery there. What really happened was that the members of the Labour Party went out through the country after the Bill going through the House and told the farm labourers that they were entitled to a half-holiday. They went out and hoodwinked the farm labourers and confused the farmers and the farm labourers and the farmers did not know where they stood. (Interruptions.) The proof of the pudding is in the eating. There was no half-day given. Deputy Dunne was not satisfied with what had happened in this House. He wanted to hoodwink the farm labourers.
That is wrong. The Minister ought not to make a statement like that. It is untrue.
That is a lie and you know it is.
Deputy Dunne will withdraw the statement he has made.
I will not withdraw the statement. It is a gross lie on the part of the Minister.
Then the Deputy will leave the House.
I will leave the House as a protest against the Minister's lie. (Interruptions.)
Deputy Dunne withdrew from the Chamber.
Will Deputies allow the Minister to make his statement?
Will the Leas-Cheann Comhairle not consider asking the Minister to withdraw the statement to the effect that Deputy Dunne deliberately hoodwinked the farm labourers of this country?
The Chair is not aware that the Minister used the word "deliberately".
The Deputy's word should be accepted by the Minister.
Mr. Walsh
I do not think Deputy Dunne could raise any objection because he knew it was a fact.
Will the Minister allow me to say that I think it would be unworthy of him or any member of his Party to allege that Deputy Dunne or myself would deliberately hoodwink the farm labourers in respect of the last half-holiday Bill? I personally thought that the Bill was capable of being operated, but I would accept the decision that was given in the District Court in my own constituency or the one in Dublin.
Mr. Walsh
What inquiries did you make?
On a point of order.
I inquired from the Department of Agriculture and they could not tell me anything. The officials could tell me nothing about it.
Will Deputy Corish please allow his colleague to make his point of order?
The Minister gave way to me.
On a point of order. Deputy Dunne denied the charge that the Minister made against him. If the Minister is not gracious enough to do it, I ask you, Sir, to ask him to accept the Deputy's word and act the part of a gentleman as well as a Minister.
The Chair understands that the charge made by the Minister was a political charge, but I ask the Minister to withdraw the word "deliberately", if used.
Mr. Walsh
I have not used the word "deliberately".
You said "deliberately hoodwinked".
The Minister says he did not use the word "deliberately".
He did.
Mr. Walsh
I said he hoodwinked the farm labourers and confused the farmers.
Deliberately.
Mr. Walsh
If you use the word "deliberately," I will agree with you.
You used the word.
Mr. Walsh
You are using it. I resent the statement that Fianna Fáil did not accept the principle of the Bill.
Give us the date. I challenge you to give us the date on which you supported it.
Mr. Walsh
I supported it from the beginning.
Give us the date on which you voted for the principle.
Mr. Walsh
I cannot give you the date from recollection but if you look up the records you will probably get it.
The Minister is concluding. Will Deputies please allow the Minister to make his statement?
Mr. Walsh
I was surprised when Deputy Sweetman stood up and accepted the principle of this Bill on behalf of Fine Gael, and I am sure Deputy Davin was also surprised.
You were agreeably surprised?
Mr. Walsh
Yes, agreeably surprised. I am sure Deputy Davin was also agreeably surprised. It was quite a change, but it gave us an indication of the acrobats we have in this House —the acrobatic performance of Deputy Sweetman.
Or of Deputy Dr. Ryan when Minister for Agriculture.
Mr. Walsh
He did a complete somersault and Fine Gael did it as well. They are all agreed now to accept the principle of the Bill, but they were not agreeable when Deputy Dunne's Bill was before the House. Now that they know that it will go through, I suppose they want to be on the winning side, or is it that they still want to lead the Labour Deputies by the nose as they were doing during their period in office?
We saw some members of both Parties going into the lobby at the same time.
Mr. Walsh
Our attitude towards the Bill was well known. The reason we did not support it on the Second Reading was that the Government would not take responsibility for it. We tried to help as much as we could on the Committee Stage and on the Final Stage we voted for it. That is our attitude as far as the Agricultural Workers (Half-Holidays) Bill is concerned.
You still contend that you voted for the principle of the Bill?
Mr. Walsh
I voted for the principle of the Bill and I spoke for the principle of the Bill.
On the Second Reading? Not here.
Mr. Walsh
Some of the Deputies who have spoken already this evening have not read the Bill. Deputy Madden, for instance, has made statements and it appears to me that he has not even read the Bill. There is no special day on which the half-holiday is to be granted. That can be arrived at by mutual agreement between the employer and the employee. Neither would I say that this is a compulsory Bill. If there is agreement between the employer and the employee that there is to be no half-day then the Agricultural Wages Board will fix a sum of money in lieu of the half-holiday for the agricultural worker. This is a simple Bill and because of its simplicity I believe it is workable. There is no compulsion and that is one thing which we wish to get away from.
If some of the Deputies speaking on behalf of Labour had any knowledge of rural Ireland they would not have spoken as they did this evening. Do they know the conditions that obtain in rural Ireland, the difficulties with which both the agricultural worker and the farmer must contend? They are at the mercy of the weather. You have not the same conditions in that industry as you have in cities and towns. In factories, work is started by the pressing of a button. Not so in the country; you must depend on the weather. You must have regard to all these things as they affect both the agricultural worker and the farmer before you start to make regulations and laws for them to carry out. For this reason I have put into the Bill a clause whereby the farmer and the worker may agree that there will be no half-holiday at all and that it will be a question of payment for the four hours to which the worker is legitimately entitled under the Bill.
To hear Deputy Dunne speaking one would imagine that a farm was something like a factory or that workers on a farm were something like city workers, that they just walked in and turned a machine. There is something more than that. If we are to preserve rural Ireland as it is and as we would all like it to be, we should not pass any legislation which would cause trouble between the employer and employee in agriculture. This Bill—and if Deputy Hickey threw his mind back to the time before he left the land he would have known this—might have a more serious effect on unmarried agricultural workers than on farmers. There are unmarried agricultural labourers who do not want the Bill to be enacted as it would not suit them. There are unmarried agricultural labourers who have not taken the holidays they are entitled to get because it would not pay them.
Even by taking the £3 12s. or whatever their wage is, they would be at a loss by taking them, and, consequently, they take the money instead. The same thing will happen under this Bill as well. The Bill enables the man who wants a half-holiday to get it, but that is about all it does. That is the only way such a Bill could be worked in this country at the present time. If we were to set out a compulsory half-holiday, I believe that we would drive agricultural workers out of the country, because you would have exactly the same conditions about which Deputy Keane spoke when he mentioned the farmer who was taken into court because he did not give the holiday, and, a decree having been given, on the following Saturday dismissed the men who were working for him. We do not want those things to happen. We want the goodwill and harmony which have existed between agricultural workers and farmers over the years to continue, one dependent on the other, one man's interest the other man's interest. The agricultural worker and the farmer were born in the same district, the same parish; they went to the same schools, played the same games; they live the same life, and eventually they will find themselves in the same graveyard. It is not the same in industries in cities and towns. There is none of that harmony which exists in rural life, that importance of one to the other and that friendship. We do not want to disturb that state of affairs. A person who stands up in this House and disturbs it does a bad thing. Particularly when we hear so much about the flight from the land, anyone who causes that harmonious relation which exists to-day to be broken is doing a bad day's work for the country.
I am glad that the House has agreed to accept the Bill in principle. I thought, when introducing it, that there would not be any debate, that it would have been acceptable in its entirety to all Parties. I have been criticised by Deputy Mac Fheórais for not bringing it in long before, but the Bill is here now, and I hope that Deputies will give me all stages here and now.
There is the Money Resolution.
The Minister will not consider any of the suggested amendments?
Mr. Walsh
I did not think that there was any suggestion you could make to better the Bill.
Be reasonable.
Mr. Walsh
I hope that Deputies will give me their co-operation.
As quickly as we can.
Mr. Walsh
I am glad to hear that. I do not think that anything I heard to-night or any suggestions which were made could better the Bill.
What about Deputy Davin?
Mr. Walsh
He has made a few but I do not think that they will be workable. They are already covered in the Bill anyway. The Bill should get an easy passage in the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Mr. Walsh
The Committee Stage this day week.
We want time for amendments. Surely after waiting nearly two years we should get a week.
Mr. Walsh
I did not wait nearly two years.
You waited since the 27th February, 1951.
Mr. Walsh
We gave your Bill a trial and it was a failure.
We gave you nearly two years; give us a week.
The debate is still on.
Would the Minister consider to-morrow week?
Mr. Walsh
Yes.
Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 20th November.