I am sorry that this motion of Senator Counihan should receive the support of any Senator in this House. As a matter of fact, the motion itself was all right, but Senator Counihan in speaking to it made the worst speech I think I ever heard in the House. I did not expect that there would be one member in the House who would make that statement. The Senator asked the House to pass legislation that would compel workers to remain at work no matter what conditions they had to work under or what payment they received. Senator Counihan would like the farm labourers of this country to be downright slaves. The Senator goes so far as to say that a person who would help the farm labourers of this country should be put in prison. Why not go the whole hog and say that anyone who would help the workers in any other type of industry should go to prison? But no, he attacks the lowest and those that are not organised. With regard to strikes, I do not like the idea of lightning strikes if they can be avoided, and I think that at certain times it is a tragedy that a farm labourer should go on strike, but the things that Senator Counihan referred to were only small little incidents and, in fact, there were no strikes of farm labourers since the emergency. Senator Counihan makes a great deal out of the fact that farm labourers were working for 18/- or 20/- some years ago. That is true, and while it was a disgrace to the country that they should have to work for 18/- or 20/- a week, the Senator will have to admit that now that they have got £2 1s. per week in view of the cost of living, it cannot be said that they are better off even at that wage.

Senator Counihan has appealed to the Minister to bring in a law that would prevent the farm labourer going on strike. The Senator is very forgetful for after all the Government brought in a standstill Order on workmen's wages in this country and we are forced to give them the credit that they did not include the farm labourer in that Order. They would not go so far as Senator Counihan would have pone in dealing with the farm labourer. For that reason I am forced to say that it is a very good job for the workers that Senator Counihan and his Party are not in power and we would see what the workers would get.

Hear, hear!

I say "hear, hear" to it too, because that standstill Order did not include the farm labourer. That is to say the Minister was satisfied that the farm labourer was not getting enough.

There is no evidence that Senator Counihan would have made that farm labourer subject to the standstill Order or that any Party would have done so.

Senator Counihan made the statement that farm labourers should not be allowed to leave their work for five years.

Quote the statement.

It is recorded here in the Official Report. The Senator appealed to the Minister to introduce legislation providing that they would not leave their work for the next five years.

That is quite a different thing from compelling them to work for the same wages.

The Senator should be allowed to continue his speech.

This is another standstill Order directed towards Senator Tunney.

The Senator must be allowed to speak without interruption.

Let him give the quotation.

I am sorry I have not the quotation.

I ask the Senator to withdraw. He is making a wrong statement about what I said.

I will not withdraw.

If Senator Counihan says that the statement is wrong and Senator Tunney cannot produce the quotation or give the reference in the debates he must withdraw.

I will not withdraw.

The Senator must withdraw if he is not prepared to verify the quotation.

I will withdraw for the time being.

The Senator will withdraw unreservedly.

All right; I will withdraw for the time being.

If the Senator does not produce the official quotation, the Senator must withdraw unreservedly.

Has the Senator not the Official Report?

I have the Official Report, but I have not time to go through it and get the exact quotation.

Is the Senator withdrawing unreservedly?

Yes, for the time being.

The Senator will withdraw without qualification. The Senator withdraws.

Yes. Anyhow the position is that Senator Counihan asked the House to pass a resolution not to allow the farm labourer to leave his work. Senator Counihan accused me of being practically responsible for bringing out these men in County Dublin. That is a lie. The Senator also accuses me of being the agricultural expert in the Labour Party. I have never claimed to be an expert in anything, but I do say that I am satisfied I am as much an expert about it as the Senator and I know equally as much about it as the Senator because the Senator cannot distinguish between the Labour Party and the trade unions. The Senator also said that I made a false statement quite recently in this House on another matter in reference to the prices of cattle. He said that I stated that beef was sold in the Dublin cattle market at 5d. and retailed to the people at 1/5 or 1/10. The Senator said I made that statement because I knew so little about what I was talking about. If the Senator wants the information I will give him figures and I will leave the House to judge. They are taken from the Irish Press and the Irish Independent of December 7th, 1944, from the market reports—prime cattle, 55/- to 57/- a cwt.; secondary sorts, 47/- to 51/-, and rougher types 43/- to 46/-.

How much is that per lb.?

I believe that Senator Counihan understands this matter. That is live weight. We have the word of the Minister for Agriculture, which I am satisfied is fairly accurate. The figure works out from 57 per cent. to 60 per cent. dead weight. I want to tell Senator Counihan also that all the offal is not waste. What about the hide? I have yet to know the butcher who sells boneless meat.

May I explain——

Not yet.

Senator Tunney is not giving way.

Senator Counihan made the statement that there was not a beast sold in Dublin at less than 1/- per lb.

I said that there was not a "screw" sold at that price.

Senator Counihan will get an opportunity of dealing with these matters when he is concluding.

Senator Counihan said that not even a "screw"—I do not know what a "screw" is—was sold at that price. From the report on December 7 in the Irish Press and Independent, fat cows were sold at from 28/- to 38/-; seconds at from 20/- to 28/- and others at from 12/- to 17/- per cwt.—an average of 24/- a cwt. for fat cows on the Dublin market. Yet, Senator Counihan, who is the expert so far as the farming section of Fine Gael is concerned, says that there was not a beast sold in Dublin at less than 1/- per lb. The figures I have given show that the average figure was 3d. per lb. for fat cows on 6th December. That meat was sold to the workers of Dublin at 1/6 per lb.

It would make a nice steak.

According to Senator Counihan's statement, he would think it good enough for some of the workers, at all events. I have also the prices here for Wednesday, November 1, and the figures are about the same. Even then, there could not be a clearance of all the animals, which shows that some people would have sold at less. I hope that, when Senator Counihan is replying, he will admit that he made a terrible mistake in saying that not a beast was sold at less than 1/-. I have shown that they were sold at 3d. My statement that the butchers were charging 1/5 per lb. was an understatement. That was the average price. Some of them were charging up to 2/- for certain cuts of beef. However, that is only by the way.

The point that concerns me most is that there should be any Senator who would go so far as to compel agricultural labourers to be slaves, because that is really what Senator Counihan's proposal would mean. Why should Senator Counihan have those people arrested on charges? I hold that, if it were not for the people who organised the workers, they would be slaves, as they were in the past in Senator Counihan's time. Surely the Senator does not want us to go back to that. Is that what he and his Party stand for—that the workers should go back to the days of slavery? It is no wonder that the workers lose confidence in any Party with which Senator Counihan is associated. According to his ideals, a farm labourer should be treated the same as a horse or a dog, but he would make sure that the horse was well fed. He would have no consideration for the labourer. Some years ago, when the cost of living was low, £2 a week would be fairly good wages. We did not hear Senator Counihan protest against the increase in the cost of living. A fairly decent suit would cost a farm labourer at present about £12. We have had the statement by Senator McCabe that a shirt would cost £1 in Cavan and a pair of boots £3 10s. 0d. I do not know how a farm labourer, rearing a family on £2 a week, could get that amount together.

How do the Tourmakeady farmers manage?

I am sorry that Senator Counihan should mention the Tourmakeady farmers. The Tourmakeady farmers were the backbone of the country. My ancestors were given the choice of hell or Connacht. Some of Senator Counihan's friends hold the lands taken from my ancestors when they were sent to Connacht, because they remained true to their religion and their country. The Tourmakeady farmer has an uneconomic holding. It was not land at all originally; it was reclaimed. It is not really fair that he should be called a farmer. I am sorry that Senator Counihan should hold him up as equal to the grabbers and graziers of Meath. I can tell Senator Counihan that the Tourmakeady farmers and their class were always true to this country. They went out and fought for this country when other people were fighting for somebody else. However, that is going away from the point.

It is.

But Senator Counihan put a question to me about the Tourmakeady farmer.

The Senator should now come back to the motion.

Were it not for the Tourmakeady farmer and his type, this House would not be functioning because the small farmer and labourer were the people responsible for obtaining these institutions. About the statement that Senator Counihan asked me to withdraw, he asked the House to pass legislation so that for the next five years the farm labourers could not leave their work. I have riot the exact quotation, but I make that statement now and refuse to withdraw it.

The Senator must now resume his seat.

I make that statement and I refuse to withdraw it. Senator Counihan in this House——

The Senator will not be permitted to make that statement, and he must sit down.

I will not sit down. I make that statement.

Chair!

Is the Senator prepared to obey the ruling of the Chair?

It is against my will.

The Senator must obey the ruling of the Chair.

The Senator should obey the ruling of the Chair.

I want to say—

This cannot be allowed. The Senator must obey the ruling of the Chair.

I gathered that the Senator, before he sat down, had the official report in his hand.

The Senator said he would not give the reference although he had the report in his hand. The Senator said he could not get the quotation. The matter cannot be reopened and the Senator must sit down.

It is damn seldom I rise in this House.

The Senator must sit down.

I take up very little of the time of this House.

If the Senator does not sit down, he will have to leave the House.

I will not sit down.

Chair, Chair.

As long as I have been in this House——

Then I shall have to name Senator Tunney. I now order Senator Tunney to withdraw from the House.

Senator Tunney withdrew.

Perhaps, Sir, it might be no harm at this stage to recall to the notice of the House the terms of the motion we are discussing. I am not reflecting on anybody but I am afraid that members of the House who have not got the Order Paper in front of them may have forgotten the terms of the motion. The motion moved by Senator Counihan is in the following terms:—

That the Seanad is of opinion that the Government should introduce as early as practicable legislative proposals for the establishment of an arbitration tribunal to which all labour disputes in the agricultural industry would be compulsorily referred for determination during the period in which the compulsory tillage regulations are in force.

Senator Counihan is obviously interested in a particular industry and a particular aspect of that industry, but whether he realises it or not, this motion does not relate merely to compulsory tillage regulations, nor is it a motion referring merely to agriculture. It is the thin edge of the wedge for compulsory arbitration in industrial disputes of all kinds. Let us be under no illusion about it. If there was any doubt in anybody's mind it was surely shattered when Senator Summerfield seconded the motion. Senator Summerfield is not interested in Senator Counihan's compulsory tillage, during the emergency and those who are going to support him are not concerned with compulsory tillage. They are concerned only in establishing in some form the principle of compulsory arbitration.

An argument could be used in favour of compulsory arbitration, but I would remind this House that the Governments which have been most successful in imposing compulsory arbitration in industrial disputes are Labour Governments, both in Australia and New Zealand and in each of the new New Zealand and Australian States. They have adopted a form of compulsory arbitration, not for the purpose that Senator Counihan has in mind but for the opposite purpose—the purpose of ensuring that there shall be adequate organisation and that wages and conditions of employment will be brought up to a minimum standard in accordance with a formula laid down by the courts of the States. That formula was established, as far as Australia was concerned, by an Irishman whose gifts we were receiving some weeks ago. Judge Higgins of the Supreme Court of Australia is the man who laid down the standard for minimum conditions in Australia. He said that the basic rate for the lowest paid grades of worker must be adequate to maintain a man and his wife and family in reasonable comfort in relation to the conditions of the time in which he lived. In other words, he did not think of a minimum for 1945 related to the conditions of 1845.

It is interesting to note that this is not the first motion relating to compulsory arbitration debated in this House even during the emergency. Senator Counihan spoke on a previous motion of this kind and I have the report of his speech here. It was delivered in this House, on the 24th April, 1940, just five years ago. Senator Counihan was on the same topic then. The motion was one tabled by Senator Douglas suggesting that the Seanad would welcome the introduction by the Government of a Bill generally amending the law in relation to trade disputes and providing for an industrial court to promulgate advisory judgments. Senator Douglas and those associated with him were not advocating compulsory arbitration. They were advocating the establishment of a court of inquiry which would advise the Government in relation to matters leading up to trade disputes. Speaking on that motion Senator Counihan said: "I do not agree"—he was voting for the motion, by the way, although he did not agree with it—"with Senator Douglas or Senator Hayes"—another member of the Fine Gael Party—"in their suggestion for settling these disputes." The Senator went on:

"I think the proposal made by Senator Douglas would only be tinkering at the job. Strikes and lockouts and peaceful picketing should be prohibited by law. In particular, peaceful picketing should be prohibited."

Then the Senator's mind travelled back over the dark ages and he said:

"There is no such thing as peaceful picketing. Peaceful picketing in a great many cases means attempted murder."

That was the speech of Senator Counihan delivered in this House on the 24th April, 1940, as reported in Col. 1091 of the Official Debates. So that Senator Counihan is not thinking now entirely of the emergency or of agricultural wages. For some reason that has never been clear to me, he has acted as if his mission in life were to get some kind of compulsory arbitration in industrial disputes—not that Senator Counihan is the type of man who wants cheap labour. I make no reflection on him in that way. I think he told us on the last occasion that he never had a labour dispute. I believe he never had and I believe that, while Senator Counihan has been complaining of parties going around the country trying to get a wage of 55/- a week for agricultural labourers, in fact he himself was paying £3. per week. I am saying that because I should like somebody to explain to the House the extraordinary mentality that permits a decent man like Senator Counihan, who has never had any labour disputes, to come in here and ask the House to tie men's hands, to tie them in a manner in which we have no right to tie them. I move the adjournment of the debate.