asked the Minister for Finance the reasons why he has refused to sanction a forty-five hour week for the employees of the Office of Public Works on arterial drainage, particularly in view of the fact that this standard working week has been approved and implemented by State and semi-State bodies, local authorities and private industry generally.

20.

asked the Minister for Finance if he will consider reducing the hours of work of employees of the Office of Public Works in rural areas from forty-eight hours per week to forty-five.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 19 and 20 together.

It would not be in the national interest to adopt a forty-five hour week for these workers. A reduction of the working week would involve a loss of production and increased costs. It could have an impact on the conditions for agricultural workers who are conditioned to a 50 hour week and it is essential to avoid interference with the conditions of those workers. The 48 hour week remains the standard throughout the country for workers employed by other Government departments and it is not proposed to make a special concession in relation to the important national work of arterial drainage.

"Conditioned" is the operative word in that context.

Surely this would not be a special condition of employment for these people in view of the fact that most other rural and industrial workers have a 45-hour week?

The existing length of the working week for non-agricultural workers in State employment is 48 hours.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary telling these people that they need not look forward in the immediate future to a reduction from 48 to 45 hours in the working week? Is the Parliamentary Secretary speaking for the Government in this matter?

I do not speak for the Government.

You should.

I have answered the questions put to me to the best of my ability but I do not speak for the Government.

Has the Parliamentary Secretary given consideration to the fact that the majority of these workers on arterial drainage, in the Land Commission and in Forestry, are on a bonus scheme and, therefore, the question of a shorter working week is not likely to affect output?

The Government have given consideration, as the Deputy is well aware, to this matter on several occasions. A general reduction of the hours of non-agricultural rural workers would lead to reduced production and increased costs and would further accentuate the disparity between the conditions of the agricultural community and those of the other rural workers.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary explain what exactly he means by "now that the agricultural workers are conditioned to a 50-hour week"?

What I said.

Does the word "conditioned" not bring to mind brainwashing or something else?

Next question.