On the last day we were discussing amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
Committee on Finance. - Agricultural Workers (Weekly Half-Holidays) Bill, 1952—Final Stages.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 2:—
In page 2, Section 4, to add at the end of the section "and, if he does not fix it, it shall be deemed to be Wednesday". — (An tAire Talmhaíochta.)
Is the Deputy discussing amendment No. 2 now?
It was agreed the last day, I think, that the two amendments might be discussed together. The Minister's amendment arose out of the original amendment that we tabled to the effect that in certain circumstances Saturday should be designated as the half-holiday for agricultural workers. On the Committee Stage the Minister promised to consider the matter and on the Report Stage he introduced an amendment to the effect that Wednesday would be the half-day for these workers in certain circumstances.
It is as well to get clear on this because the Minister was not apparently too clear the last day as to what we were talking about. Firstly, the Act lays down that the half-holiday shall be ascertained; that is, the particular day in the week shall be ascertained by agreement between the employer and the worker. Where that agreement is impossible of achievement the employer shall have the right to determine on what day in the week the worker will take this half-day.
We submit in our amendment that when agreement is impossible, or is found to be impossible, and when the employer neglects to specify the day, then Saturday shall be designated the half-day. We regard that as eminently reasonable. The employers' rights are protected almost to a fault. In that particular section, at any rate, the employer is guarded in the last particular. If agreement is not found possible the employer has the absolute right to appoint the day upon which the half-day will fall and he can name any day from Monday to Saturday, inclusive.
What more can we do for the employer? In all fairness to the agricultural worker we say that there should be a proviso guaranteeing to the worker a specific day and that that day shall be Saturday. The Minister's amendment is to the effect that Wednesday is a more suitable day. Arguments have already been adduced here to show that Saturday is a more suitable day. Common sense indicates that it is the most suitable day for almost any type of worker.
What is the purpose of a half-day? The reason why agitation developed in the last few years for a half-day for agricultural workers is two-fold. Its purpose is, first of all, to reduce the working week and give these workers more leisure. Secondly, its purpose is to enable the agricultural worker to do the same as every other worker in the country does, namely, to go about his own domestic business on Saturday afternoon, to purchase what he requires for the following week, to visit the shops and do anything he wants to do for himself.
Agricultural workers are, like other workers, paid on Friday or Saturday. In most parts they are paid on Saturday morning. Some of them are paid on Saturday evening where the half-day does not at present operate. A half-day on Wednesday would, in my opinion, be of no benefit to a man who wanted to avail of his leisure for the normal domestic purposes I have described. Yet, the Minister sees fit to bring in this amendment. I am completely at a loss to appreciate his reason for it unless it is that he does not want to accept a very constructive suggestion.
It must be remembered that the eventuality in which difficulty might arise is remote unless farmers as a class generally intend to neglect their duties and legal obligations imposed on them. It is more than likely that it will never be necessary to specify a day in order to implement this section of the Act. I do not believe there is strong opposition among the farmers to giving a half-day on Saturday but there is a pretence here that there is such opposition. Even if that is so, the cases in which the section would have to be applied would be relatively few and would not result in any grave hardship to the agricultural community.
One opposition Deputy raised a point which merits consideration by the Minister. The qualifying period is laid down and the worker must work 45 hours before he is entitled to a half-day. If Wednesday is designated is it not obvious that the calculation of the qualifying period will be rendered difficult because Sunday will intervene and break up the 45-hour period?
Does not common sense suggest that Saturday is the most suitable day for a half-day? If an employer does not want Saturday all he need do is say so and the Act enables him to give a half-day on any day he likes if he cannot get agreement with his worker. What more can the employer want? What more protection can any Government give him?
Surely some consideration must be given to the agricultural worker and his family in this matter. In certain parts of the country Wednesday would be of no earthly use because the shops would be shut. In most small towns, villages and cities custom and tradition have established that the shops remain open on Saturday afternoon and sometimes up to a late hour on Saturday night largely for the convenience of people living in the country.
No matter what arguments may be advanced in opposition to our amendment, it is based upon common sense. I do not think the Minister can make any case for resisting it. It is in that light that I put it to the House. I think that to bring in an amendment for a Wednesday half-day is a puerile effort.
I fail to see why Deputy Dunne and the Labour Party generally are inclined to make such a fuss about this particular amendment. It is quite clear that if the farmer and the worker agree they can fix any day of the week they like. If they fail to agree, the farmer can decide on any day of the week that he likes. It is only when neither of these two things would happen that this amendment would take effect. I think that the number of cases in which neither the farm worker nor the farmer would agree to fix the day would be very few. That being so, why should the Labour Party seek to make a strong objection to the fixing of the day as Wednesday? I think the Minister has made a concession to Deputy Dunne and to the Labour Party in this amendment. The original intention of the Bill was that no day at all would be fixed in the event of no agreement or in the event of the employer not fixing the day. Those of us who are engaged in agriculture know that there are very strong reasons why Saturday should be avoided. Saturday is the eve of Sunday. If the half-day is given on Saturday it means that the worker is free for a consecutive day and a half and that the farmer is deprived of his assistance during all that time. No cows have yet been bred which need to be milked only five and a half days per week.
That is a very hackneyed statement.
I know, but it should be hammered home to those who do not live on the land and who know nothing about the conditions that prevail on the land.
It is so true that it need not be mentioned at all.
It is so true, apparently, in the eyes of Deputy Hickey that it can be ignored.
Please do not misinterpret what I say.
The suggestion is that the farmer and his wife and family should have no assistance for one and a half consecutive days. I think it would be dangerous to write Saturday into the Act. In matters of this kind, there is a tendency to be guided by what is in an Act. I think that that is really Deputy Dunne's intention in this respect. He wants, gradually— slowly but surely — to force the Saturday half-holiday upon the entire country. He wants to extend to rural Ireland the same working hours as apply in industrial and commercial life. He may consider that a desirable ideal to strive for. He is working towards it in defiance of nature. He is working towards it in defiance of the well-established fact that the work on a farm must be done day in and day out for seven days of the week no matter what laws we may pass in this House. If we are to have a break in agricultural employment, I think it should not be a break of one and a half consecutive days but, instead, a day each week — Sunday — and a half-day, perhaps somewhere in the middle of the week.
There is a good deal of flexibility in this Bill and that is one of its best features. There is provision for agreement between the farmer and the worker and that is most desirable. They can agree to have the half-holiday on any day they decide upon, or they can agree not to have it at all and instead to compensate the worker for it. Further, the employer can fix on the day which he thinks fit. As a last resort, it is provided in the Bill that Wednesday can be fixed as the day. Deputy Dunne and the Labour Party generally are making a great deal of fuss about nothing. I think this amendment is a generous concession to the Labour Party.
Perhaps the Labour Party may be inclined to look upon the matter from a different angle from Deputy Cogan. He thinks that we should be very good boys because a concession is offered to us. In our opinion, Deputy Cogan has completely evaded the issue. He mentioned that the Bill is flexible. It is. We are not asking that any action be taken against the farmer who, even if he does not reach agreement with his employee, fixes the half-day himself. We have in mind the section — it may be small but it is there and it would surprise me to hear Deputy Cogan deny that it is there — who are anxious to take advantage of the provisions of any Act. In this case, this small percentage of employers might take advantage under the Act not to state what day would be the half-day.
Deputy Cogan has not denied that, undoubtedly, Saturday is the best day as a half-day for the employee. In the event of a refusal by the employer to say that he is willing to give the worker a half-day on any of the five days of the week preceding Saturday, this amendment fixes Wednesday as the half-day. It should be possible to inform such an employer that Dáil Éireann has passed an Act giving him the right as an employer to fix a certain day of the week as the half-day and that if he is not willing to accept the provisions of the Act then Saturday shall be deemed to be the day on which the half-holiday will operate as, possibly, it is the most suitable day for the employee. If the employer is not prepared to co-operate with us, why should he ask us to co-operate with him?
Deputy Dunne made it clear that this matter will affect only a small percentage of employers. In my opinion those whom it will affect are in some instances to be found in the South of Ireland — the largest type of farmer, the rancher type, people who have no sympathy with the ideals or with the people of this country be they the middling-sized farmers or farm workers. Because those people are of foreign origin, they have no sympathy with the ideals of the people of this country. I do not see why, like Deputy Cogan, we should bow to them and say: "If you are not prepared to give a half-day we ask for Wednesday, the middle day of the week." In all probability the worker will not have money on Wednesday to go shopping or to do business for his family whereas he would have it on Saturday.
That is one important fact, because employees in most spheres of life are generally paid at the end of the week and they have to rely on the few pounds which they get to carry them over the week-end. When the week-end is over, they are again waiting for pay-day at the following week-end and they have practically no money meanwhile. Therefore if the farm worker who happens to be in the employment of the type of individual whom I have described, is to get his half-holiday on the Wednesday it would be of little value to him, relatively speaking, whereas if the employer is willing to fix a day in co-operation with his employee, or even fix a definite day on his own, we believe that there can be, and will be, understanding of that arrangement on the part of the employee and a true sense of co-operation will exist between him and his employer. Our sole idea in supporting amendment No. 3 is to make sure that in regard to the objectionable types of employer who are scattered here and there throughout the country and who want to take advantage of the law to make things awkward for their employees, we shall have the last say by ensuring that this Bill will be administered from a truly democratic point of view.
After listening to members of the Labour Party, I have been wondering why in the original Bill which they brought in they did not fix Saturday as the half-day for all employees if they are so concerned about the 1 per cent. who, they say, will be affected by this section. They did not make any effort in that Bill to have Saturday established as the general half-holiday. They now make the case that it is the ideal day for a half-holiday and they are trying to get it established in respect of this 1 per cent.
We assumed it would be done by agreement.
As the Minister pointed out, there would be no necessity for this amendment except in cases where the farmer and the worker failed to agree on a day and where the farmer did not himself select a day. In any event, the law would then be operated against him. Deputy Dunne will admit that. There is absolutely no necessity for this amendment or even for the Minister's amendment as the worker is entitled to his legal rights outside these amendments.
You say so.
You say so, too, and the Bill says it. If these amendments were not there at all, the law comes into operation in favour of the worker. I cannot see what the hubbub is about at all. The question of what is the most suitable day for the half-holiday depends on the type of farm. Saturday may or may not be suitable for many farmers. If there is only one man working on the farm Saturday might be a most unsuitable day. I hope that no organised group will set out to establish one particular day, and that alone, as the day on which the half-holiday is to be taken because the whole machinery of the Bill might then break down and it would not be possible to operate it. It would be much better to allow the thing to work out itself and no doubt the most suitable day will be agreed upon as between the farmers and the workers themselves. I could put up strong arguments from the point of view of many agricultural workers as to why the last day of the week should not be selected as their half-holiday but I do not propose to do so. The only reason given by Deputy Dunne for selecting Saturday was that the agricultural worker wanted Saturday as the day on which to spend his money. That could be argued the other way too.
A half an hour would be sufficient for that.
We might have strong arguments to put up against that. The Minister has given way to the Labour Party in fixing a particular day of the week for those undesirable types of employer who will not either lead or drive but there is no reason why we should put shackles on farmers generally.
Deputy Allen has put a reasonable question to the House. He asks why, if the Labour Party were so keen on having Saturday as the half-day, we did not look for it but he himself supplied the answer to that question. He pointed out that it would be impossible for every type of farmer to have Saturday as the half-holiday. We, in the Labour Party, realise that. We know that there are circumstances in which it might be impossible to give the half-holiday on Saturday and we have approached this matter with a view to trying to meet the farming community, in particular dairy farmers, and to give them an opportunity of picking a day that is most suitable in the majority of cases. We have even gone further. We have agreed that the farmer should have the sole right to pick whatever day is most suitable but in the event of his doing neither one thing nor the other — fixing a day by agreement with his workers or fixing it by himself— we suggest that Saturday is the natural half-day. Deputy Desmond and Deputy Dunne have given their reasons why they believe that it is the natural half-day. I do not intend to repeat these reasons but I would say that, in computing the number of hours worked, it would be more convenient for the farmer that a clear week should have passed from Monday to Friday so that he would clearly know in his own mind how many hours had been worked and that Saturday would be available for the worker who had worked continuously through that week.
I do not wish to delay the debate but, with all due respect to both sides, this seems to be an argument with very little net issue. I do not believe that the employers of the type envisaged by Deputy Desmond exist in any great numbers or in any great frequency and I am inclined to ask the Labour Party to give this Bill an opportunity of working and if they find that there is any necessity for such a specific provision as this, then they can look for it later. I am thinking principally in terms of my own constituency and I could not for once agree that Saturday would be a suitable day for the half-holiday in many cases. Perhaps Deputy Dunne has experience of a different type of farm but I do feel, looking around my own constituency at the type of small farmer there and the type of small employer that the small farmer is, that the dangers envisaged by Deputy Desmond have not any reality.
The net issue comes down to this, that a man will get what I concede he is justly and properly entitled to, namely a half-day every week. If the mechanics of this Bill prove inoperative, then I think it will be infinitely more practicable for Deputy Dunne with his experience of these particular workers, to produce an amendment to the Schedule under which, in conformity with the desire of localities, he will be able to lay down specified half-days in cases where farmers are not operating the Bill. Even if we accept it that Deputy Cogan represents a certain type of farmer in this House. I think it is fundamentally wrong even to concede that there are men of the eccentricity of mind conceived by him.
I was speaking for farmers of all types.
Even if we were to conceive that, I do not believe any man will have a difficulty in solving this half-day problem. I do not think that our farmers are going to be troublesome about the half-day. It is true that, once there was a change, their innate conservatism would have objected to it, but once the half-day becomes a reality, I do not think there will be any trouble. The reasonable relationship that has existed between the farm worker and the farmer, particularly so far as the small farming community are concerned, will, I believe, continue. The difficulty will not be as real as some Deputies seem to imagine. I feel that Labour are pressing a point that is of considerable consequence to their supporters. Let us, however, accept the principle that every man must get the half-day that is in the Bill. Let us, first of all, see how the mechanics of this Bill will work.
If, when it is in operation, the fears which have been envisaged by Deputy Dunne and Deputy Desmond are found to exist, then I can tell them that, without fear or favour, they will have my absolute support if they come in with a type of amendment to the Schedule setting out what the half-day should be in particular areas governed by the circumstances in those areas. In the meantime, I suggest that it would be of more service to the people whom the Labour Party represent and to the farming community if we did not engage in any further argument about this.
When introducing the Bill I made no provision for a specified day for the half-day. I still hold the opinion that there is no necessity for it because there is ample provision in the Bill to ensure that the agricultural worker will get the half-day. If the farmer refuses to give it, there is a penal clause in the Bill dealing with that. It has been suggested by the Labour Party that Saturday is the most convenient day for the half-day. I dispute that, because it is not, even from the point of view of the agricultural workers in many cases. I do not want to delay the Bill, because I hope it will be passed to-day.
I do not want to get into any argument about this, but let me give an example. Take the case of a farmer who has two men working for him. One is a married man and the other a single man. He makes an arrangement with the married man to give him the half-day on Saturday so that he may be able to go to the local town or village to do his business. The unmarried, when he discovers that the married man has the half-day on Saturday, looks for it on that day also. The farmer refuses. The single man does not agree that he should not get it. It is for the farmer to select the day. He selects a day, let it be Wednesday or Tuesday. The worker does not agree, and the two are left undecided. The farmer does not want to have a row with his man by saying that he cannot take it. He does not want to compel him. It is at that point that the designated day comes in. Since there is a designated day, there will not be any dispute between the worker and his employer. We have fixed Wednesday as the designated day.
Now, if these two workers were to take the half-day on Saturday it would mean a complete disruption of work on that farm. No work could be carried out because the two men were away. It is for that reason that I have agreed to name a day, and I think myself that Wednesday is the most suitable day in the country. There are agricultural workers, particularly unmarried men, who may wish to get away for a day now and again. They may want to attend a coursing meeting. These meetings are usually held in the middle of the week. The acceptance of my amendment will give them the opportunity of being able to have a day off in the middle of the week. Deputy Davin mentioned something about men wanting to get to a sports meeting on Saturdays. I do not know what type of sports meeting he was thinking of, but the kind of games I am interested in are those promoted by the G.A.A., and they are not held on a Saturday. Maybe Deputy Davin wants agricultural workers to patronise other games.
No, I do not.
Mr. Walsh
I am pressing for Wednesday because I see no necessity for Saturday.
I do not intend to press this amendment to a division, but I do want to have myself and my colleagues recorded as dissenting from the proposition that Wednesday be the half-day.
Amendment No. 2 put and agreed to; Deputies Davin, Desmond, Dunne, Hickey, Kyne dissenting.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In page 3, Section 6, line 8, to delete "45" and substitute "42."
When an amendment of this nature was under discussion last week a number of Deputies did not see eye to eye on it, and as a result a certain amount of heat was introduced into the debate. We came to the point where one side refused to see the point of view expressed by the other. The result was that we actually got nowhere in trying to give effect to our intention of making an improvement in the Bill and in affording protection to those for whom we speak. Everyone should realise, including the Minister, that it is not for sport that we are moving these amendments, or, as Deputy Cogan might try to show as he does at all times, that we are doing so in any spirit of vindictiveness. We are doing so because of the danger we see of abuses arising and so are facing up to our responsibilities.
We are determined to see that the Bill is made as watertight as possible against those who, through their legal advisers, may wish to try and find holes in the Bill and, as it were, drive a coach-and-four through it.
The Minister said last week that a 45-hour week before the half-day was all that he would consider. He was fully entitled to express his opinion and to say that no one would be anxious to evade his responsibility by trying to get out of giving the half-day. According to the Minister's view a man would have to work nine hours a day on five days before he would be entitled to the half-day. That would open the door, in our opinion, to employers of the type — and let Deputy Cogan know the type I am speaking of — who would be quite ready to evade their responsibility of giving the half-day under the section as it stands. If these people pretend that they are giving the half-day on any particular day, they can say to the worker that he is not to work a nine-hour day but an eight-hour day. That man, therefore, cannot work more than the eight hours fixed by his employer which will mean for the five days a 40-hour week. These people can avail of such circumstances to avoid giving the half-day to the employee. I know, of course, that many Deputies will be amazed to hear that that could be done. I know of neighbours of mine who would not do it, but I also know of neighbours who will be very quickly off their mark to do it. These men who have 600 or 700 acres of land will certainly take the opportunity of getting the opinion of their law adviser and take the advantage of having the worker work, say, an eight-and-a-half-hour day and if the 45-hour week of five days is to remain in the Bill that worker will only be working for eight-and-a-half hours a day making a total of 42½ hours and, therefore, will be denied the advantage of the half-day.
We are prepared to admit that a large percentage of the employers will not take advantage of this, but are we to have such sympathy for them that, with our eyes wide open, we will allow a Bill to pass which is making it quite clear that those who are in better circumstances than the smallholders and can afford to give the half-day are to be let off scot free? That is the main issue in this amendment. In case the Minister or Deputy Cogan may have any doubt about the matter and think that we are narrow-minded and looking for trouble beforehand, they should read the speech of the present Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Ryan) when introducing the Second Stage of the Agricultural Wages Bill in 1936. The Minister should not judge this issue on our word alone. He should peruse the statement made by that Minister at that time. There is no greater proof of the correctness of the line we are taking in this matter as regards certain people than the statement made by that Minister when he pointed out certain circumstances that prevailed in certain places.
We ask the Minister to realise, as we realise, that by making it 42 hours he will not place any undue burden on the majority of the farmers who are prepared to co-operate and with whom we are anxious to co-operate. This will only protect the right of the worker against the mentality and the superiority complex of some employers in this country. People of that type are still coming into this country. We can see from pictures in the papers that they are coming here by air from England with their furniture and their dogs and their horses all brought over in the one day. Are we to give these people the right to take advantage of a loophole in this Bill? I ask the Minister to consider the importance of placing the obligation fairly on all such employers in this State, those who are honest and who are willing to co-operate, and those who will not be willing to co-operate if they can avoid giving this half-day.
Mr. Walsh
At no stage during his speech did Deputy Desmond touch on the real meaning of this amendment. I am surprised that Deputy Desmond would make such statements as he made, statements which are without foundation. He has condemned the farmers of the country on the ground that they are not giving fair play to their workers. He mentioned the Agricultural Wages Act of 1936. Can he tell us how many prosecutions were brought by agricultural labourers under that Act or in how many cases farmers have refused to carry out that Act? He has not cited one case in which a farmer has not honoured his obligations to the agricultural worker. In effect, what this amendment means is that it will still further reduce the working week. I have already reduced it from 54 to 50 hours. The Deputy wants to reduce it further to 47 hours. That is in effect what the amendment means and nothing else. If he were honest, he would tell the House what was really at the back of his mind.
How do you arrive at that?
Mr. Walsh
The Deputy mentioned 42 hours as the qualifying period. I am asking that 45 hours should be the qualifying period and there is nothing unreasonable in that. In the Deputy's own Bill of 1951 it was 54 hours, but in this Bill it is 50 hours, and this amendment means nothing more or less than to reduce the working week from 50 to 47 hours.
Not at all.
I am surprised at the attitude which the Minister has taken. Either he misunderstands what we are putting forward in this amendment or else I misunderstand him completely. There is no intention of reducing the working week from 54 to 47. It has been reduced to 50 by the Minister and we are satisfied with that. The intention of the amendment is to prevent people finding a loophole in the Act and by manipulating the hours on the days preceding the half-day which they have fixed themselves avoiding the giving of any half-day. I do not think the Minister wishes that the Act should allow people with impunity to defeat what is intended, namely, giving the half-day. This Bill says:—
"Where, as respects any particular week, an agricultural worker does not complete 45 hours of work during the five week-days preceding the day on which the half-holiday is to be allowed under this Act, he shall not be entitled to a half-holiday in that week..."
All a farmer has to do is to make sure that he will not permit a worker to work the qualifying 45 hours prior to the day he has already selected himself as the half-day and continue to do that so that his employee can never get a half-day. That is actually why we have put in this amendment. No Act is placed on the Statute Book to compel the decent law-abiding employer to carry out the wishes of the Government; Acts are put there with the deliberate intention of making it impossible for the man who does not wish to obey the law to avoid being punished and paying the penalty for not carrying out the wishes of the lawful Government of the country. The Minister seems to have misunderstood our intention or else he is deliberately trying to impute to this Party something which we did not intend. The Minister, I feel, will learn that if he resists this amendment and insists on the Bill going through as it is, time will show that this legislation will be of no use to the people he intends to help.
Whatever the merits of the points of view of both sides, the issue between the Minister and the Labour Party seems to be that he purports to say that the Labour Party are endeavouring to reduce the working week to 47 hours while he wants to keep to 50 hours. It seems to me to be a matter of very ready solution without any further acrimonious speeches. Could the draft not be very simply amended to continue the operation of the 50-hour week but with a clause providing that any employee who has worked for 42 hours per week qualifies for a half-holiday?
That would suit us.
That meets the wishes of both sides without any difficulty. I am not intervening as a kind of mediator between both sides. What is wrong is that while the views may be fundamentally the same, both sides have gone off on a tangent. I was not in the House for the Committee Stage when this matter was argued. I am with the Minister, however, when he wants to ensure a 50-hour week and I am also with the Labour Party when they want to ensure that there will be no juggling with hours even though the amendment might affect only one or two individuals in the whole country who might wish to do so so as to be able on a legal technicality to refuse a half-holiday. I would suggest a simple legal compromise embodying the Minister's belief in the 50-hour week and at the same time laying down a minimum of 42 hours which will entitle the man to claim his half-day. If that is done I think that the Bill will be improved. It will do away for ever with what may be regarded as the justifiable fear of the Labour Party who are, I would say, making a plea in all sincerity on behalf of the agricultural workers and it will keep the Minister who is the protector of all sections in agriculture right too. I would press the Minister in this way: If, where legislation like this is concerned, the House can get into the mood of hearing the concerted opinions of all sides and choosing the best one, we will do something of benefit to the agricultural community and avoid the things that occur in debate which should not occur. They may occur unconsciously when an argument becomes acrimonious and the representatives of the farm labourers may be put in the position of being seemingly in opposition to the farmers. I do not think that it is fair to the workers represented by the Labour Party or to the farmers for whom the Minister is advocating to put them in that position, when both sides are in fact actuated by the genuine motive of trying to do their best in the situation. I put it to the Minister that he should accept in the spirit which existed earlier in the morning a fair compromise which will provide that if the worker works a minimum of 42 hours he will get his half-day and will ensure also that he cannot by working 42 hours avoid his responsibility to give a 50-hour week in return for the wages laid down.
It is a simple matter of technique. The Minister has in many ways been eminently reasonable particularly in the view he took when he had difficulties with the Costings Commission and in the way in which he tried to get that body back to its task. I do not think that it would serve any useful purpose for either the Labour Party or the Minister to have acrimonious disputes when it is a question merely of framing a technique whereby the Minister can have the assurance of the 50-hour week and whereby at the same time the fear can be erased from the minds of the Labour Party that any juggling with hours or making one day an eight-and-a-half-hour day could defeat the purpose of the Bill.
I appreciate the effort which Deputy Collins has made to adjust this matter but I think, if I am not mistaken, that the proviso already exists in the Agricultural Wages Bill. The main fear of the Labour Party, so far as I could ascertain, was that some utterly malicious employer would seek to evade his obligations under the Bill by cutting down deliberately on the working hours of the worker five days prior to the half-holiday. If any employer wants to do that I think that you cannot prevent him. The employer can always send the man home for one day of the week or if it happens to be raining dispense with his services. In that way the period of 45 hours is broken and the man is deprived of his half-day. I do not think however that that is a condition which is likely to arise except on very rare occasions and for a very short period. If you had a relationship like that between the employer and the worker they would very soon part altogether. It would be better to leave the Bill as it is and see how it works.
Mr. Walsh
I am sorry that I cannot accept Deputy Collins's suggestion. Already the Agricultural Wages Board have authority to fix wages per week and per hour. If any farmer intends juggling with hours there is a fixed hourly wage for the worker and it is at a higher rate, I understand, than the weekly wage. Therefore, instead of working weekly, the worker starts in on an hourly basis. I agree with Deputy Cogan, because it has never appeared to me, anyway, that there should be any necessity for an amendment such as this because a question like that never arises in the case of any farmer I know in my county or in the adjoining counties. There are times of the year, for instance, when the agricultural worker will not qualify but that will not defeat the ends of the Bill. It has been happening for years. You have the Wages Bill. The worker might not work in December for a 54-hour week, and yet get his wage. It is nonsense for people to say that the majority of farmers are determined to rob the worker of his rights.
Who said that?
Mr. Walsh
That is what was implied.
On a point of order. The Minister has said that it has been stated that the majority of farmers were not paying owing to the 54-hour week. I am asking in view of the fact that no such statement was made——
Mr. Walsh
I am glad that you admit that the majority of farmers do not.
I never stated that.
Mr. Walsh
In my experience it has not happened. Ample provision already exists to prevent people who deliberately intend to defeat the ends of the Bill from doing so, and consequently I intend to resist the amendment. I believe that this Bill is a much better Bill than that introduced by the Labour Party——
That is your trouble.
Mr. Walsh
——based on the 54-hour week. My Bill is based on a 50-hour week and, I think, should be readily accepted by the Labour Party as being a vast improvement on the Bill they introduced.
The Minister has deliberately asserted and reasserted that this amendment put forward by my colleagues has the intention of reducing the number of hours in the working week. That position has been clearly explained to him by Deputy Kyne and notwithstanding what Deputy Kyne has said he still refuses to accept the explanation. Does the Minister, even now, accept what Deputy Kyne has asserted, that there is no such intention as he has endeavoured to put across to the House?
Mr. Walsh
There is provision for it there already in the Bill.
Do you accept the explanation given by Deputy Kyne regarding the intention of the amendment before the House?
Mr. Walsh
I do not know what his intentions are.
It was explained by Deputy Dunne and by other speakers in this group during previous discussions that the sole aim of putting forward these amendments was to make the Bill watertight. We were anxious to get agreement with the Minister on that so as to save the Minister and the officials of his Department, in the administration of this measure, from having to come up against innumerable complaints, and so as to save agricultural labourers from dismissal. I would ask the Minister to realise that when Deputy Dunne, Deputy Kyne and Deputy Desmond, in particular, speak in the House on matters of this kind, they are speaking from painful experience of what has happened in their own areas in the past. These experiences are not unknown to the Minister. We are anxious to secure unity and harmony in the House in the passage through its final stages of this agreed measure, if that is possible, so that the cranky and the very bad type of farmers — and they are in the minority; they do not exceed 5 per cent. — will not be able to evade their responsibility; and so that every farmer will understand his obligations and every agricultural labourer will understand his rights.
Does not the Minister know perfectly well — if he does not know, he is not in touch with the officers and officials of the Agricultural Wages Board — that many agricultural labourers have been dismissed by the big type of employers in this country for claiming their rights? Have not such complaints been made to the officials of his own Department? In most cases the officials in his Department have no power to deal with the people who inflict such punishment on the citizens of this State who look for their constitutional and legal rights. The Minister has taken, to my surprise, a provocative line on the Committee Stage of this Bill. The Minister has not lost his memory and knows perfectly well that he did not vote for the principle of the half-holiday on the Second Reading of the Bill introduced by the Labour Party.
Mr. Walsh
He did.
He did not. Let the Minister give us the reference in the Official Reports.
Mr. Walsh
The Government of the time refused to accept responsibility for it. It showed the futility of Coalitions.
The Minister and his colleagues went out of the House and I remember a colleague of his coming over here and asking for permission to remain in the House and cast his vote according to his conscience. He was ordered out into the Lobby on the Second Reading Stage of the Bill for which the Minister and his colleagues refused to vote.
Deputy Dillon voted against the measure.
I am not exempting Deputy Dillon from blame in connection with the matter. He was in the same company on that particular occasion as the Minister was.
Mr. Walsh
He was not.
I challenged you before and I invited you — it is a more polite expression — to produce to the House the record in the Official Reports where you voted for the Second Reading, which means the principle of the Bill introduced by the Labour Party.
Mr. Walsh
Did I vote against it?
The Minister was neutral. He went out into the Lobby for a smoke. He was told to go out. He would have voted against it if he were allowed to vote. That is quite clear from the attitude he is adopting.
Mr. Walsh
There would be no agricultural half-holiday only for me.
Let us have agreement on what is reasonable and right.
Mr. Walsh
I accept that as being reasonable.
Our amendments were put forward not for the purpose of penalising the majority of farmers who are decent citizens of this State but for the purpose of ensuring that agricultural labourers get their rights.
Mr. Walsh
That is what we want.
The amendments were introduced for the sole purpose of dealing with the type of farmers who do not believe the agricultural labourer has any rights except the rights the farmer personally confers upon him.
(Interruptions.)
Order!
I listened attentively to the discussions. I did not take a big part in them because I conceded that Deputy Dunne, as leader of the Federation of Rural Workers, Deputy Kyne and Deputy Desmond have greater experience in this matter. I have not the same knowledge as they have of what is going on in the rural parts of the country in regard to the administration of the Agricultural Wages Act, 1936, and other measures that have been passed giving those people rights. They speak from painful experience. The Minister is not ignorant of some of these matters.
Mr. Walsh
We know all about them.
Some of these gentlemen farmers, whom Deputy Cogan claims to represent, not working farmers, are the people who are trying to deprive the agricultural labourers of whatever rights they may venture to seek under the terms of this measure in whatever form it may pass through the House. We are putting forward these amendments and appealing to the Minister to join us in trying to secure that this agreed measure will be sufficiently watertight, that no cranky farmer or farmer of the gentleman farmer type will be able to evade the terms of the measure passed.
All farmers are gentlemen. Do you not realise that?
Deputy Cogan gives me the impression when I listen to him speaking in the House that he is the typical farmer type. Whether he calls himself a gentleman farmer or not I do not know.
I presume he is a gentleman.
This has no relation to the amendment.
I said this to Deputy Cogan privately but I do not mind saying it publicly, that if I were in the position of Deputy Cogan with the past history that he has and with the views that he expresses in this. House, I would support this Government on this measure and any other measures in silence rather than be talking, as he pretends to think, as a deputy for the Minister for Agriculture and as a deputy for many other Ministers.
Mr. Walsh
It is a pity the Deputy would not go back on some of his own statements.
I do not mind the Minister quoting them against me. I have challenged him on several stages of this Bill to give the Leas-Cheann Comhairle the reference to the records where he voted for the principle of this Bill.
On a point of order, we will be reporting progress for Private Members' Business shortly, and I would be prepared, in order to have the amendments to this Bill disposed of, to allow this to go on.
Perhaps the Lord Mayor of Cork, Deputy McGrath, would have a private chat with the Minister for Agriculture and explain to the Minister what is the meaning of the word "holiday". He has not even got that into his head firmly, and that is why I appeal to the Minister to bring in a definition clause. It would be an education to him, and he could always have it before him to explain the meaning of "holiday".
Mr. Walsh
I do not know the meaning of it because I never had one in my life.
The Minister has the impression that the farmer of the gentleman farmer type that Deputy Cogan claims to represent can tell a man: "Stay at home to-morrow; stay at home on a particular day of the week". That is the Minister's understanding, as far as I can follow, of the meaning of the word "holiday".
You succeeded in talking it out and delaying the holiday for the labourers.
Mr. Walsh
They will not get it before Christmas on account of this.
It can come into operation on a date to be fixed by the Minister.
If there is agreement in the House, we can go on now.
Mr. Walsh
We will not have it through both Houses before Christmas.
The Minister asked for it to-day.
May I point out that this is a stage of the Bill where a Minister as well as a Deputy has the right to speak only once? How many times did the Minister speak to-day?
Mr. Walsh
I have only spoken once on this amendment.
How many times did the Minister speak on this amendment? That is obstruction.
He can speak once to each amendment.
I think the Labour Party are anxious about this Bill——
Mr. Walsh
They are showing their anxiety.
——and the Government is anxious. Is there any possibility of getting any further with this Bill to-day? If there is agreement in the House, we are prepared to give portion of Private Members' time now in an effort to get this Bill a stage further.
Carry on, of course.
In the same way as there was a carry-on for the last half-hour.
If Deputy MacCarthy has anything to say against us let him stand up and say it.
What I did say is that if the discussion now goes on in the same way as it has gone on for the last three-quarters of an hour, after the Minister has said that he wishes to get this Bill to-day, the extension of time which Deputy Collins has so kindly conceded for the purpose of getting it through will be futile.
On a point of order, and with particular reference to what Deputy MacCarthy has said, I would appeal to you, Sir, to insist that the rules of procedure on Report Stage be adhered to by the Minister and the Deputies on this side.
Does the House agree, then, to continue discussion on this Bill and to give the Minister the Report Stage?
Deputies
Yes.
We want agreement if we can get it.
I am very pleased to agree.
Agreed.
Having moved the amendment on Report Stage, I am asking for advice. Has the mover of the amendment the right to reply to the discussion on the amendment?
That has been conceded on many occasions.
Before we go any further, could I ask the Minister a simple question? There is some point at issue between the Minister and the Labour Party?
Mr. Walsh
A big point.
Will the Minister give an assurance to the House that the fear that has been expressed by the Labour Party is covered by the Bill and, if it is not, that between now and the next stage of the Bill he will ensure that it is covered? If we can get an assurance of that kind, I think we can get the rest of the Bill through without any trouble.
Does the Minister now accept that there is no intention in this amendment to reduce the maximum working week, as explained by Deputy Kyne? Is he accepting that? The Minister asserted that this was a deliberate attempt to reduce the maximum working week.
Mr. Walsh
I do not think I used the word "deliberate" but it is an attempt to reduce the working week.
No.
Mr. Walsh
You qualify with 42 plus 5. That is 47. That is a working week. In the Bill there is a qualifying period of 45 plus 5, that is 50. That is the difference between the two. Any person can take advantage of the amendment and use it.
In industrial work——
Mr. Walsh
Do not introduce industrial work. We are dealing with agricultural work.
If you take a half-day in the middle of a term of employment, is there anything wrong in continuing your schedule of employment after the half-day?
Mr. Walsh
Nothing wrong. In the Bill it is 50 hours.
Does the Minister withdraw the assertion that we are trying to reduce the maximum working week?
What the Minister said was that any person can take advantage of the amendment.
He is too vain to admit it.
It could be used in that direction, he said.
It seems absolutely useless to go on with this because members are coming into this House who were not here when the matter was discussed. Whether they are for or against the amendment is immaterial to me. They are entitled to their views whether they are individual or Party views. It is not very helpful to have members who have no knowledge of what has been said coming into the House at the end of the discussion. I am not speaking of one particular person; I am speaking of many.
On this amendment the Minister said that the words used by us were not honest. I do not mind what he says. He used other lines of argument. He challenged the mover of this amendment, that is myself, to produce cases where farmers had not carried out another Act. I do not intend to take up the time of the House on this amendment discussing another Act, but if the records are compared as to the number of complaints made by him and the number made by me under the Act of 1936, the Minister will find that the number of my reports exceeded his.
I treat with the contempt it deserves what the Minister said in his first speech on this amendment. He made it quite clear again that he is not anxious for and that he is not willing to give co-operation on this amendment. Co-operation is undoubtedly refused in spite of the suggestion of Deputy Seán Collins, which would have met our point and, I believe, would also have met the Minister's point. It was a suggestion by a neutral for the purpose of an agreement between two warring parties. If that suggestion has not been accepted by the Minister, let me say for the record, that the members of the Labour Party were quite willing to accept that suggestion, as it would have gone a certain way to meet the problems that we are faced with, problems that the Minister evaded in his attack on this amendment. We wish completely to ignore his personal attack.
As to the suggestion that we are not anxious to get this Bill through, the Deputies who made that suggestion should understand that we had no say in ordering business yesterday evening. We did not question the order. We left it to the various Ministers concerned to fit in the business at this stage. If this business was not ordered yesterday, the Minister or any member of the Government will not blame us for that. We do not deserve to be attacked for that. Deputies know quite well that we are not holding this matter up. As Deputy Collins's suggestion is not being carried out, we will not force the amendment to a vote against a machine, but we ask that the names of those of us here be recorded as dissenting against the Minister's line in this matter.
Question —"That the word proposed to be deleted, stand"— put and declared carried.
I would ask those Deputies who wish to have their names recorded as dissenting to stand up.
Deputies Kyne, Davin, Desmond, O. Flanagan, Everett, A. Byrne, T. Byrne rose.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In page 3, Section 7, to add at the end of line 21 the following:—
"if, but only if the worker has been paid in respect of such Church holiday or public holiday or day's absence from work during that week."
This is another matter on which we had a long discussion on the Committee Stage. In moving this amendment we are trying to make it clear to the Minister that the views expressed by us and by members of his own Party a week ago would be met by the acceptance of this amendment and that is why we ask that it be passed. The Minister made it clear that in his view, if a Church holiday came in a week preceding the giving of a half-day, the farm worker had a full day off at no loss to himself and therefore should not have a half-day. It is well for the Minister to know we did not ask otherwise. We still agree that in a week where a Church holiday happens to come, if the worker is away from work on that day and is paid for that day, he should not be entitled to a half-day as well. But in our opinion and in the opinion of members of the Minister's Party, where the worker is entitled to a half-day, but on one of the five days preceding that day the Church holiday comes and where the worker is not paid for that Church holiday and, because of the custom in many parts of rural Ireland where workers realise that it is not right or proper to work on a Church holiday, the worker, who has been at the disadvantage of being out of work and not being paid for the day, should get his usual half-day with pay. I do not see anything wrong with that suggestion.
Furthermore, under Section 7, as well as it being mentioned about the case of the Church holiday or public holiday, it is well for the Minister to read the last two lines of that section where it is mentioned that if the worker is away or is otherwise absent from work he shall not be entitled to a half-day in that week. Has the Minister now any suggestions to make to try and justify the claim that he made on the Committee Stage, as against members of his own Party — to whom he openly gave credit for the views we expressed on this particular issue? Is the Minister still going to say that where the Church holiday comes in and where the worker is off through the system operating in the locality and where the worker is denied any remuneration for that day, he is also to be denied the right of a half-day in that week?
There is no need to go into this in much more detail. It has been thrashed out already. In view of the fact that we had pleading by members opposite, including Deputy Corry, to whom we openly gave credit in this House last week, in view of the statements made by him and in view of the common-sense approach by Deputies who could see certain disadvantages under Section 7, I would ask the Minister again to accept the amendment here. It clearly states that if the worker has been paid in respect of such Church holiday or public day or day of absence, he is not to be entitled to the half-day, but in the event of his being away from work on such a day at his own financial loss he should not be deprived of the right to his normal half-day in such a week.
I am rather surprised that Deputy Desmond, giving a certain amount of credit to Deputy Corry, did not include other Deputies who spoke favourably to the workers' point of view.
I mentioned other Deputies but I did not mention other names.
I was rather surprised that both he and Deputy Davin have tried to represent me as being in some way hostile to the workers' point of view. Deputy Desmond did not give me credit for taking the workers' viewpoint on this particular issue. I agree with the general principle that where a worker is not paid for a day off he is entitled to his half-holiday. I do not know whether this amendment covers the point fully or not, or whether or not it may create other difficulties, but I would like to say that I am in favour of the general principle of it.
The net issue here covers only one point, where for reasons of conscience or local circumstances, a man does not work during the Church holiday. As the Bill stands at present, he could be deprived of a normal half-day. I was not in for the discussion during the Committee Stage, but I understand it was fairly acrimonious and that, despite the acceptance by certain Deputies on the other side of the House of the principle, when the bell rang for the division they trooped in the usual direction.
That statement is not true, of course.
Some of them did. Maybe Deputy Cogan performed a miracle for once; I am not aware of that.
He did.
The statement by Deputy Collins is not true.
If the Deputy did it I will express my appreciation of his being able for once to make up his mind correctly about something. This is not a question for acrimony. It is a question of a net issue. I will put this point of view to the Minister. Where, in circumstances over which he has no control, a labourer may be in the situation that he cannot work on a Church holiday — his employer may be of such a type or persuasion that he does not accept the position that is generally accepted in rural Ireland with regard to a Church holiday — I do not think that the fact that he has not worked a day without pay should militate against him getting the normal half-day with pay. This is only a small point and operates in respect of a very limited number of cases.
If the Minister analyses the matter fairly he will see that there is a point in this amendment whether or not the actual drafting of the amendment covers it specifically. I would suggest, whether he accepts this amendment or does something about it on his own initiative, that the Minister should amend the Bill to ensure that, where through no conscious fault of the workers themselves this difficulty arises, they would not be victimised by virtue of being laid off for a day and not get paid for it and that they could get their half-day with pay. I do not think there is any need for heat or anything else. It is purely a net issue and if the Minister considered it in that spirit there would not be any difficulty about his finding some way of sealing the Bill against what might be an injustice.
Mr. Walsh
When we discussed this section on the Committee Stage last day, I thought we had finished with it but the matter has been raised again. We have exactly the same argument put forward to-day as the last day. As I pointed out, this Bill has nothing to do with wages. This is a Bill dealing with a half-holiday for agricultural workers. If a question of wages is raised it is for the Agricultural Wages Board to deal with it. Under this Bill, it will be necessary for the Agricultural Wages Board to go into the question of wages.
The agricultural workers' wages are based on a 54-hour week. In future, I presume, they will be based on a 50-hour week. This question of Church holidays or public holidays must be taken into consideration if work is done on those days in assessing the wage for the week.
As I pointed out on the last day, there are parts of the country where you have certain systems in operation. For instance, in some areas men work on public holidays and bank holidays and are paid for it. In other areas work is carried on on Church holidays and payment is made. In other areas no work is carried on on Church holidays. What is proposed in the Bill is that in a week where a half-holiday falls on a Church holiday, a public holiday or on a holiday which would be regarded as one of the annual holidays of the worker, no half-holiday be granted. That is all that is in the Bill.
There is no reference whatsoever to the payment of wages for any day in that particular week or for the half-day. That is beside the question altogether and has nothing to do with it. It has been introduced here by Deputies and I think there has been great confusion in the minds of many Deputies regarding this matter. This has nothing whatsoever to do with wages. It is no concern of the Bill whether there is payment for a day or not. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the granting of the half-day.
Is it not the position that a holiday for the worker without pay could, in fact, not be a holiday at all?
That is the trouble. The Minister cannot understand that.
Mr. Walsh
I can.
That is the net point. I want the Minister to seal the Bill in order to ensure that the Act will not militate against the man getting his half-holiday. That is the real purpose of the amendment.
Suppose there is an agreement between a farmer and his man for a half-holiday on a Wednesday or a Thursday and that on the morning of that day the man, because of illness or through some other reason, is unable to go to work, does the Minister suggest that the Bill has no bearing on the fact that a man is entitled to a half-day's wages for that day because it is his recognised half-day? The Minister must admit that if there is not payment for a holiday or a half-day the whole thing is meaningless.
Mr. Walsh
Provision is made, where there is a mutual agreement between an employer and an employee to work, that a certain sum of money is designated for the half-day. That is done by the Agricultural Wages Board.
The Minister is admitting exactly what I am saying. If the man works for that half-day he gets an extra five hours' wages
Mr. Walsh
Provision is made for that.
If the man works on a day and does not work in the morning because of sickness is he not entitled to get that half-day's wages at the end of the week?
Mr. Walsh
He will have qualified with his 45 hours for a half-day. But if he does not work 45 hours and he is paid on a weekly basis he is not entitled to a full week's wages. There is no question of payment for the half-day and that is where the confusion starts.
It is the Minister who is confused.
Mr. Walsh
There is no confusion in my mind regarding this amendment dealing with the half-day. There is no question of payment. There will be a question of payment where there is mutual agreement between the employer and the employee. The sum of money will be fixed, I take it, by the Agricultural Wages Board.
I want to clear my mind on one point. Where a holiday is not a holiday from the labourer's point of view — the Minister knows what I mean — and where it is enforced on him by circumstances of conscience and where, in fact, there is no question of payment is it the position under this Bill that he could, by virtue of having to take a day off without pay, be legitimately entitled to a half-day?
Mr. Walsh
He would not be legitimately entitled to the half-day. He does not qualify according to the number of hours worked. This matter can also be looked at from the opposite side. I can also visualise an employee staying at home on a day he is badly needed on the farm.
It is the Church holiday I am worried about.
Mr. Walsh
Deputies on the opposite side of the House should realise that the geese are not all swans.
I am only interested in one specific day — the Church holiday.
Unfortunately, the amendment covers other days.
Mr. Walsh
Yes. In regard to Deputy Collins's point, if the man does not work on a particular day during the week he does not qualify for a half-day because he has not worked the 45 hours to qualify him. Deputy Hickey stated that the man might have to stay home for some reason but that case is provided for in the Bill.
The Minister ought not to accuse me of saying that. I am putting the matter plainly. If there is an agreement for the man to work on a Wednesday and if on that particular day he is not able to come to work, having worked the rest of the week, he is not entitled to be paid for that half-day?
Mr. Walsh
The Deputy is speaking of the morning of the day on which he is to get his half-day?
Yes.
Mr. Walsh
He is already qualified in that case. There is no provision in the Bill and that is a matter that must be determined by the Agricultural Wages Board because the new wages are based on a 50 hour week and not a 54 hour week, as in the past. Provisions will be made for the half-day. They will be made where there is mutual agreement between the employer and the employee. Deputy Hickey has raised the question whether the worker will be paid for the first part of the day on which he is entitled to a half-day. I take it that the Agricultural Wages Board will still operate the two systems in existence at present. One is a weekly wage in future based on a 50 hour week and the other, an hourly wage, so that provision is made for the payment for the number of hours an employee works in that week and he is losing nothing.
If, through no fault of his own, a man is denied the right to work a certain number of hours, is that to militate against the total number of hours that would normally entitle him to qualify for his half-day? The net point is whether the Minister will make provision, in cases in which that limited circumstance arises, that if a man is not paid for a Church holiday and does not work for reasons of conscience or any other reason, that will not militate against his qualification for a half-holiday. That is the point that interests me and it is the point on which I am completely ad idem with the Labour Party.
Mr. Walsh
I cannot cover that in the Bill because that is a matter for the Agricultural Wages Board. It is a matter of the fixing of a wage and this has nothing to do with it. I can deal only with holidays and not with wages. What the Deputy is asking is that I should determine payment.
No. The Minister has not followed me. There is one specific case where a Church holiday arises and where the number of hours, through no fault of the labourer himself, cannot be credited to him for that week. It is a specific exclusion and I suggest that the Minister can put in a simple provision to cover the position where this arises, so that that day will be counted for the purpose of qualification as if it had been worked.
Would the Minister consider the one specific case of the Church holiday and leave out all the others?
Mr. Walsh
I will accept that. I will consider the question of the Church holiday, of making provision for payment. Does that meet with the wishes of Deputy Collins?
Yes; that is exactly what I wanted to ensure.
Mr. Walsh
If a Church holiday is worked in any week and there is payment for it, the question does not arise, and the point I take it is that, if for any reason outside the control of the employee, he has to remain away from work, he will still qualify for his half-day.
The lack of the hours will not militate against his qualifying.
Mr. Walsh
I will accept that.
The old saying is that half a loaf is better than none. Let me say with regard to Deputy Cogan that it was not a matter of wishing to exclude his name. The Deputy is quite correct and I wish to have it recorded — he spoke in favour of this matter last week. I am giving him credit for it in this instance, as I would be prepared to give it to any Deputy, irrespective of what side of the House he sits on. There was no question of deliberately omitting his name — it was merely a matter of overlooking it. While I want to make it clear that it will be shown that this Bill is weak and while I say that the Minister was miles wide of the mark in the views expressed during the debate, if he is prepared to agree, as a half measure, as he has said, to the Church holiday, we will accept it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill recommitted for the purpose of amendment No. 5 (a).
Mr. Walsh
I move amendment No. 5 (a):—
In page 4, before Section 12, to insert a new section as follows:—
Section 20 of the Agricultural Wages Act, 1936 (No. 53 of 1936), shall have effect for the purposes of this Act in like manner as it has effect for the purposes of that Act.
There is an amendment on the Order Paper, amendment No. 6, in the names of Deputies Dunne, Mac Fheórais, Davin and Desmond, in the following terms:—
In page 4, before Section 12, to insert a new section as follows:—
The powers conferred on officers of the Agricultural Wages Board under the provisions of Section 20 of the Agricultural Wages Act, 1936 (No. 53 of 1936) shall be extended for the purposes of this Act.
I have decided to accept that amendment in principle, but propose that it be in the form of my amendment No. 5 (a). It can be brought in under the 1936 Act where you have inspections by inspectors of the Agricultural Wages Board and penalties if the regulations are not complied with.
I take it that the powers of the inspectors will be similar to those set out in that Act?
Mr. Walsh
Similar to those in the 1936 Act.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment reported and agreed to.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass".
We have been accused on more than one occasion, including this morning, of having obstructed, or attempted to obstruct, the passage of this measure, and it is just as well, without any provocative language from me, to review the position.
Who accused you?
Deputy McGrath.
You have not forgotten me, anyway.
He pleads guilty. On 22nd February, 1951, when a Bill which had the same objective was before the House, the Minister promised — he cannot blot out the records — that he would bring in this Bill, or a Bill of this kind, within a month. What has been the cause of holding up this promised Bill between 22nd February, 1951, and the date of the introduction of this measure?
Mr. Walsh
Was not your Bill in operation during all that period?
Order!
I claim your protection against this ministerial type of interruption, friendly or otherwise. On the Second Reading of this measure we indicated quite clearly, which is not perhaps the usual procedure, the type of amendments we thought desirable in order to make the Bill introduced by the Minister a better Bill than it appeared to be. Apparently, I am a very innocent type of Deputy and I misunderstood the Minister, though I thought I knew him fairly well. The Minister, when concluding the debate on the Second Reading, brushed all amendments aside. He had not read them. He obviously did not understand what they were about. He said they were a waste of time. He claimed we should agree to pass the Bill in all its stages on that day.
I did not think, when the Minister came to deal with the amendments on the Committee Stage — and I presume that he had the advice of his departmental officials — that he would take the very provocative line he adopted on that stage. If he had adopted a reasonable attitude and met our wish that this should be an agreed measure and if he had related his attitude to that appeal this Bill would have passed through its final stages long before now. On the first day the Minister brushed all the amendments aside and said the Bill was a perfect one. Has it not been improved now after lengthy consideration?
Mr. Walsh
Deputy Cogan has improved it a little bit.
And Deputy Corry.
Deputy Cogan and all the other Deputies who have made a genuine contribution towards the improvement of this measure will, I hope, get all the credit they deserve for that in their particular areas. From the beginning we wanted an agreed measure because it is far better to have a Bill of this type put through as an agreed measure, if such is possible. An agreed measure is much easier to administer.
The agricultural workers are being asked to believe that Fianna Fáil is giving them these legal rights. The agricultural labourers are not by any means stupid. They will understand and, in due course, they will be able to give their due measure of appreciation to those who are really responsible.
Mr. Walsh
That is quite true. They know what happened the last one.
I am anxious to see harmony between the farmers — particularly the gentlemen farmers that Deputy Cogan claims to represent— and their workers because it is only by means of harmony and goodwill on the part of both that we can hope to achieve our primary objective of increasing agricultural production.
Deputy Cogan can have all the credit he wants but the Minister must admit on this Final Stage that after an unnecessarily lengthy period in Committee we have hammered a bit of sense and reasonableness into his hard head. The Minister has a good heart and I believe he faced up to this Bill in a good-hearted way. Unfortunately, he was not able to work what he intended from his heart into his head and we had to spend about six hours on the Committee Stage, with the goodwill, co-operation and assistance of Deputy Cogan, Deputy S. Collins, Deputy Corry and Deputy McGrath— by means of his laughter — getting the Minister to improve the Bill. The Minister has promised that he will improve another section of the Bill, and we are letting him have the Bill in its Final Stage on the understanding that he will make that improvement when the Bill comes before the Seanad.
Recently I was reading through some Dáil debates dealing with an effort made here some years ago to introduce a Bill to give farm labourers a weekly half-holiday during the period when the Fianna Fáil Government was in office. The Bill was introduced by the Labour Party. It was defeated by an overwhelming vote of the House. During the lifetime of the inter-Party Government I recall having had discussions with the then Minister for Agriculture, who did not believe, and expressed to me his disbelief, that one could get through this House a Bill which would give to agricultural workers a weekly half-holiday. I recall, too, the fact that when our Party introduced the Bill in 1950, the Bill passed through the House by accident because of a tactical error on the part of the then Fianna Fáil Opposition.
It was no tactical error.
The Fianna Fáil Opposition refrained from voting, believing that by doing so they would secure the defeat of our Bill by the inter-Party group.
No such thing.
That is quite correct. Of course, that is true.
As it happened, we secured for the first time recognition of the principle that farm labourers are human beings and are just as much entitled to a half-holiday per week as is any other worker. During the 18 months or two years which have passed since the passing of that Act certain difficulties have appeared, manufactured difficulties, largely because of propaganda and sabotage by people who never wanted to see agricultural workers get a half-holiday. These difficulties were capitalised and we now have the present Minister putting this measure through.
This Bill provides the maximum protection for agricultural employers and the minimum guarantee of a half-holiday for agricultural labourers. That is the sum total of it. It is, however, a step in the right direction and our attitude to it is not an unwelcoming one. We believe we are moving in the right direction.
Anyone who faces the issue clearly must admit that this Bill would never have seen the light of day and farm workers would never have got a half-holiday were it not for the fact that the Labour Party has been pushing this principle, not merely during the last two or three years but during the whole of its existence, in order to secure this very simple amenity for farm labourers.
The expressions of opinion to which we have listened here on the Committee and Report Stages are ample evidence that if the issue were left to the tender mercies of some Deputies — I instance in this respect Deputy Cogan and bracket with him the present Minister — the farm workers would never, in their lifetime, have got a half-holiday. These Deputies have been forced and jockeyed into the position, however, that they must now accept this principle. This Bill represents the culmination of a struggle, not on my part alone, but on the part of those who have gone before me. In that connection I mention in particular the name of James Larkin, a name well known to agricultural workers, not only in County Dublin, but throughout the country. It was James Larkin who struggled and fought to establish for farm labourers, who were at the lowest level of the social scale, certain minimum standards of existence, and it is in acknowledgment of the work he did that we welcome this small step in the right direction.
I would not intervene in this debate were it not for the remarks of the last speaker. It is well known that the inter-Party Government, during its period in office, introduced a Private Members' Bill for the purpose of giving a half-holiday to agricultural workers. When the then Minister for Agriculture refused to accept responsibility for that Bill, the Fianna Fáil Party refrained from voting on the Second Stage.
That is honest.
A Committee of the House was set up. Seven members of the Fianna Fáil Party acted on that committee. The committee approved of the Bill. They improved it considerably. One of the representatives of Fine Gael on the committee — Deputy Sweetman — tabled amendments on the Report Stage of that Bill. The Minister for Agriculture of that Government and the Minister for Education of that Government went into the Lobby and voted against the agricultural workers' weekly half-holiday. That can be verified by Deputy Dunne, Deputy Davin or any other Deputy who wishes to look up the records. They are the people they were supporting at that particular time.
Deputy Cogan was in that minority.
I do not care who was in it. I am talking about what happened.
At least you did not vote at all.
Fianna Fáil voted on the Report Stage and improved the Bill. To everybody's surprise, however, the people to whom you were tied tabled amendments on the Report Stage. I think that ought to stop Deputy Dunne and those others who are boasting about what they did in the last Government.
Where has the Bill been for the past two years?
The three Labour Ministers.
You know nothing about agriculture.
I probably know as much about agriculture as you do. Deputy Dunne has not the appearance of a man who has been connected with agriculture.
Deputy McGrath on the question "That the Bill do now pass."
I think is is no harm that these facts should be made clear.
I regret that the Bill is about to pass in this kind of atmosphere. I think it redounds to the credit of anybody in this House who has taken the view that they would like to put a minimum floor under the standard of the agricultural worker. At all times, and irrespective of what Party I belonged to, I have felt that kinship with the agricultural worker that is inevitable in the son of a small farmer. I do not think we are doing justice to ourselves or, indeed, justice to the farmers or to the agricultural workers by making this Bill in its Final Stage the subject of a good deal of bickering. Nobody will be able to assess the merits of effort made on behalf of a section of the community as quickly as the people who are affected. I am not for a momnet going to enter into the niceties of what people did or why they did it. I have at all times been an avowed supporter of the principle of establishing a half-holiday for the farm labourer since the stage when Deputy Dunne first introduced it. I did that in an inter-Party day when we were allowed to exercise our own judgment and our own conscience in the matter.
As far as I am concerned, I would say without hesitation that I accepted that principle as a guiding principle and as a basis on which we should work. But let me say this. At all times I was anxious to preserve — and I am making my speech at this stage in a sincere effort to continue to preserve it — the relationship that, in the main, has always existed between the farmer and his man. That relationship may have its exceptions and it may well be that there were cases of acute victimisation and extreme difficulty — cases to the knowledge of people sitting in this House — but the general situation, and particularly in relation to the stock from which I have sprung myself, the small farming community in this country, is that there has always existed a tremendous camaraderie between the farmer and his men. It was there before half-holidays were envisaged. I have seen it and I am sure the Minister has seen it. We all know that the farmers have been very reasonable with their men in the matter of giving them time off.
This Bill makes it a legal certainty that the agricultural labourer is entitled to his half-holiday. As a keystone in statute law, it is a very valuable contribution. It would be unfair of me not to say that where the farmers of the constituency of West Cork, which I have the honour to represent, are concerned, and I am sure it applies generally, I think there was always a spirit there and an arrangement between the farmer and his men which this Bill will do nothing to improve. Certainly it will do nothing to hinder it.
I think we should let this Bill go through in the spirit that we are trying to make an irreducible minimum for people worthy of the best consideration of this House. If we are going to view in a realistic way the basic economy of this country it ultimately redounds to the farmer and his labourer if the economy is sound. Taking it in that spirit, it ill behoves us to make extravagant claims or to make artificial differences between these two sections. I have a feeling that, while legislation is necessary for protection, in the main this legislation is for the purpose of getting after people who have abused privileges or people who have not exercised what was normal human charity and decency in relation to their employees. I assert fearlessly that that was the exception rather than the rule in the agricultural community of this country. As such, I welcome this Bill and its passage to ensure that the wrong type of employer will effectively be brought to book.
I want the Bill to go through with my acknowledgment of a grand spirit that I have known to exist heretofore between the farmer and the labourer. I hope that no remarks, heated, ill-advised or ill-judged, that may have been made at stages of this Bill will in any way affect that spirit in a deteriorating manner because that union and that co-operation not only brought us where we are to-day but it was the strength and co-operation and co-ordination, in the main, of that section that gave us the very right now to legislate any minimum standards for them.
I think it is only right that this House should pay a tribute to the Minister for putting this Bill through the House. I think it is a good thing that a Bill which will confer such an immense benefit upon the agricultural workers should be sponsored and put through this House by a practical farmer and an employer of agricultural labour. I think that that makes for unity, goodwill and harmony between those two great sections of the community. I only regret that, at this stage of the Bill, the Labour Party did not more graciously acknowledge the service which the Minister has rendered. There is always a desire, I suppose, on the part of the Labour Party to gain what political kudos they can in a matter of this kind.
So far as I am concerned, I should like to see a fair and just appraisal of the stand taken by all Parties and of the stand taken by Independent Deputies. I took a stand against the original Bill, as introduced by the Labour Party. It was a bad Bill. It sought to enforce the compulsory closing down of work on the farms for a half-day each week. This Bill does nothing of the kind. This Bill provides that, where the farmer and worker agree, the worker can get additional wages in lieu of a holiday. I think many workers will find that that is much more advantageous to them in these days than a shortening of their working hours. It was on that point that I opposed, and rightly opposed, the original Bill and it was because that issue was removed on the Committee Stage that I stated that I would not force the Bill to a division. I regret that the Fine Gael Party forced a division on the Fifth Stage against my wishes and after I had announced my intention not to challenge a division. I, of course, had then no alternative to voting against that Bill but I made it quite clear that there would be no division on the Fifth Stage if I had my way. Deputy Sweetman in his desire to crush the Labour Party, his allies in the inter-Party Government, forced the matter to a division. It is no wonder that Deputy Larkin said that the Fine Gael Party worked in broad day-light and in the dead of night, to undermine and destroy the Labour Party.
You have a lot in common with Deputy Larkin, I am sure.
What is the Deputy quoting from?
From a phantasy of his own imagination.
The Chair is unaware that the Deputy is quoting from anything.
He was pretending to quote Deputy Larkin.
I did not purport to quote from anything. I have a fairly good memory and I read the statement made by Deputy Larkin at some conference of the Labour Party in the Mansion House.
What about your fellow senile delinquent?
It has no relation to the Bill.
I think that Deputy Davin widened very much the scope of the discussion on the Fifth Stage of this Bill. He referred once again to "gentlemen farmers" and to "working farmers," as if gentlemen farmers and working farmers were in different categories. I hold that the working farmer is the only real gentleman farmer in this country.
That is quite a good tack.
Perhaps Deputy Davin will allow me to continue instead of laughing as he does. I think Deputy Davin should brush up his ideas in regard to agriculture. He was one of the pioneers of the great flight from the land. I think it is 50, 60 or perhaps 70 years since he fled from the land, and he does not seem to have been in touch with agriculture since. He seems to think that the only gentlemen in rural Ireland are the men who wear riding breeches and follow the hunt. I hold that the real gentlemen in agriculture are the men with nailed boots, the working farmers who "snag" turnips side-by-side with their workers in the field. These are the real gentlemen.
You never saw anybody following the hunt without breeches.
I belong to the latter class — to the working farmers. My people for generations have farmed in Wicklow, in South Kildare and in Carlow, and we have been always proud to regard ourselves as working farmers. If Deputy Davin would like to make inquiries into that matter, he will find that it is true. I think it is a good thing that we have had a certain amount of good humour in the debate on this Bill. It is going to impose a fairly hefty burden on farmer employers. Farmer employers recognise that this House is imposing a fairly substantial burden on them but, since it is a law enacted by an Irish Parliament in a free Ireland, the farmers are patriotic enough to accept it and to work it to the best of their ability, in unity and in harmony with their employees.
I should like to congratulate the Minister not alone on his honesty and courage in introducing a Bill of this kind but on having successfully piloted it through the House. It is, as Deputy Collins said, rather unfortunate that some incorrect statements were made in the course of the debate which will not lend themselves to the better working of the Bill. Fianna Fáil is not to get any credit, according to the Labour Party. That is very obvious. Let me remind them, however, that it was Fianna Fáil who helped the agricultural worker to achieve any step forward that he has achieved in this country. Some of us are old enough to remember the bad days, the bad wages and the bad conditions which prevailed prior to the advent of the Fianna Fáil Government. These days have gone. We have now advanced a further step forward in improving the conditions of what I consider, not alone the most deserving section of the community, but the best entitled to any concessions that this House can give them — namely the agricultural workers.
An attempt has been made to suggest that when Deputy Dunne introduced his Bill on a previous occasion, Fianna Fáil did not support it. Fianna Fáil abstained from voting on that occasion because of a fundamental principle which was involved — that we believed, still believe, and always will believe, that it is the duty of a Government to accept full responsibility for a measure of this kind. The previous Government were not prepared to accept such responsibility and left the measure to a free vote of the House. That is why Fianna Fáil abstained. When the Government after that vote of the House decided to accept the Bill, Fianna Fáil sent its nominees to the Select Committee of 15 and I think everybody will agree that their contribution to the labours of that committee was as helpful as that of anybody else. We are not seeking credit for doing more than anybody else. The Labour Party are entitled to credit for any suggestions they make in regard to that Bill, but I think they will have to agree that, were it not for the advent of Fianna Fáil to power again, they would be barking up the wrong tree for the next 100 years and they would probably never get a measure of this kind through the House.
I want to get it out of the minds of some people in this House that Fianna Fáil were in any way responsible for even the slightest damper on any Bill of this kind. I believe that the last Bill which became an Act was sabotaged. It led to a considerable amount of trouble in the country. It led to a number of court cases and decisions were arrived at but it was not an Act that could be described as a sound measure.
Now, the agricultural worker can be certain that he is going to get his half-holiday, and there can be no doubt either in the mind of the farmer or his employee that the latter is entitled to it. The half-holiday will, in the near future, be a legal instrument. I sincerely hope that the good spirit obtaining between the working farmers and their employees will continue. It is hardly necessary to refer to the class that used to be termed "gentlemen farmers" because they do not employ anyone. I sincerely hope, regardless of what has been said by those who may be trying to get political kudos from the passing of this Bill, that the good spirit which has always obtained between our working farmers and their workers will continue. Some people have argued that, as a result of giving this half-day, we are going to have less production. I do not share that view at all. I believe that, on the passing of this Bill, we will have if that is possible, an even better spirit in the country, and that there will be more production, because the one thing that is needed for the salvation of the country, economically, is more production.
I welcome the passing of this Bill and in doing so would like to refer to the congratulations which have been extended to the Minister by Deputy Cogan, Deputy Davern and others. Everyone knows quite well that this Bill would never have been introduced if it were not for the continued agitation of the Labour Party. Whatever congratulations may go to any other side of the House for it, it must be conceded that the Labour Party are responsible for it. As a member of another Party, I want to pay the tribute that is due to the Labour Party for the successful fight they have made in bringing this matter to a satisfactory conclusion on behalf of the agricultural workers. I should like to pay a special tribute to the agricultural workers' direct representative in this House, Deputy Seán Dunne.
The Bill would have been passed long ago if it were not for the fact that it has taken a considerable time to educate the Minister as to what a half-holiday is. I hope, now that we are on the concluding stage of the Bill, the Minister will be able to see the difference between a half-holiday with pay and a half-holiday without pay. I hope that when the Minister himself gives the half-holiday to his own employees it will not be at their expense but at his.
That does not arise on the Bill.
I want to refer to Deputy Cogan's further switch in this connection. He supported the principle of the Bill to-day, but he was one of those 18 Deputies who, some short time ago, voted against the principle of giving agricultural workers a half-holiday. I hope that when his friend, Major-General Dennis, gets a copy of the Official Report he will not throw the Deputy overboard.
That does not arise either.
I think, in all fairness, it must be said that the passing of this Bill is a step in the right direction as far as the agricultural workers are concerned.
On a point of order. The name of a constituent of mine has been mentioned in a very derogatory way, and so I think I am entitled to say that this particular man has been giving the half-holiday with pay to his workers over the past two years.
That is since the last Bill became law.
Since the Minister has paid such a tribute to the agricultural workers, I should like to have it borne in mind that the Fine Gael Party have given every assistance and help to the Minister in getting this Bill passed speedily through the House. The members of the Fine Gael Party have as much regard for the plight of the agricultural workers as the members of the Labour Party or the members of the Fianna Fáil Party. The Fine Gael Party has always given sympathetic consideration to the reasonable demands of these workers. We have shown that by our attitude this morning in the manner in which we supported the passage of this Bill. The members of the Fine Gael Party are with the workers in the just demands they have made for this half-holiday. Now that the Minister has assisted the agricultural workers in getting this half-holiday, I hope he will lose no time in giving increased prices for wheat, oats, beet and barley to enable the farmers to be able to pay their men.
That has nothing to do with the Bill.
Mr. Walsh
I had no intention of speaking on this stage of the Bill. I do, however, wish to thank those Deputies who, by their contributions, have helped to make this a better Bill than the one that I first produced. I do not mind Deputy Dunne standing up and blowing hot and cold about what he has done in the past or intends to do in the future. I have experience of what he did in the past in connection with the Bill that he introduced, and I know how capable he can be when he introduces such a measure. I should like to challenge him on the question of our contribution to the 1950 Bill. As Deputy Davern has pointed out, we refused to support that Bill on the Second Reading because the Government at the time refused to take responsibility for it, and for no other reason.
That is all cod.
Mr. Walsh
We wanted to point out to this House, and to the country generally, the futility of Coalitions.
You have a Coalition to-day.
Mr. Walsh
We succeeded in doing so because we had the result in the 1950 Agricultural Workers (Half-Holidays) Bill which proved to be an unworkable Bill. Deputy Dunne knows that it was unworkable, and, yet, as I told him on another occasion in this House, he did not go to the agricultural workers and tell them that it was unworkable. He did try, however, to put it across that under that Bill every agricultural worker was entitled to a half-holiday.
On a point of order. I want to know whether the Minister is now stating that the 1950 Bill did not become the law of this country.
Mr. Walsh
It was unworkable.
Was it the law?
Mr. Walsh
It was the law, but it was unworkable.
According to your colleague, even Major-General Dennis has been working it.
Mr. Walsh
There is no use in the Deputy telling us that it was the law when that law could not be put into execution. Deputy Dunne came down to my constituency to talk about that Bill. He told the agricultural workers there: "You are fools if you do not get your half-holiday; you are entitled to it; you must get it, and I will see that you will get it." I wonder where did he see it? It is I who have made it possible for the agricultural workers to get the half-holiday and not Deputy Dunne.
No one believes the Minister.
Mr. Walsh
I have not seen the sweet face of Deputy O. Flanagan in this House for some time, certainly not when we were discussing this Bill on the last day in Committee. He was not here for that stage of the Bill, but he comes in to-day to laud and applaud the Labour Party for what they have done in connection with it. He does not know what they have done. They have held it up, and if it were not for the generosity of Deputy S. Collins this Bill would be coming before the House next week. I would like to remind Deputy Flanagan of that. Deputy S. Collins was generous in giving us the time to discuss it, and of having it passed through the House to-day. Now, we can have the Bill before Christmas. Otherwise, that would not be the case, due to the antics and the tactics of some people on the Labour Benches.
Where was it for 20 months? In cold storage.
Where was it for 16 years?
Deputy Dunne should not interrupt when the Minister is speaking.
Mr. Walsh
If I introduced this Bill at any time sooner than I did, Deputy Dunne and Deputy Davin would have told the House and the country that their Bill did not get an opportunity and that it was a much better Bill than mine. I gave that Bill every opportunity to prove a failure, and it has proved a failure. However, getting away from that, I hope this Bill when it becomes an Act will be a success. It was in that spirit that I brought it in. It was in that spirit that I acted on the Select Committee on the 1950 Bill. Deputy Cogan also acted on that committee. When we of the Fianna Fáil Party went in to work on that Bill we believed that we were helping, and we did help as much as we possibly could. If there is a record of the discussion of that Bill when in committee, and I suppose there is, it will be found that our contributions were constructive, and they were meant to be constructive in order to make that Bill workable. It was not our fault that it was found not to be workable. I suppose enough has been said about that already, but we can always pinpoint the cause of its not being workable.
This Bill has the unanimous backing of the House on its Final Stage. I should like to point out — I have not already gone into this matter — that unless it has the co-operation of our farmers and agricultural workers it will not be workable either. We must have co-operation from those on the land in order to make matters of this kind workable. If you have compulsion on one side or the other you defeat your own ends. I believe that this Bill, even as I brought it in and without any amendment, would have had the co-operation of the farm workers and the farmers and would have been a success.
In the past, when there was no legislative provision for a half-day for agricultural workers, there was always give and take, although I have not heard it mentioned by some of the Labour representatives, in the agricultural community. No agricultural labourer was ever denied the right of having a day off, and it is wrong for Deputy Dunne to say that the farmer tried to deny him that right. He had that right. I know that and I have as much personal experience of the agricultural workers as Deputy Dunne or Deputy Davin and probably more. I have known them for a longer period, I have been in their company and travelled with them for a longer period than either of the Deputies. I also know the difficulties of the farmers. For that reason I believe that the Bill as introduced by me would have been accepted by both the workers and the farmers. I hope now as a result of the unanimity we have had to-day that this Bill will be a success and that it will give to the agricultural workers the right that is enjoyed by other workers who are not half so deserving of it.
When are you going to give them the 10/- over the industrial workers?
Over the builders' labourers? We are a long time waiting for it.
Question put and agreed to.