Agricultural Wages Bill, 1936—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The Minister to conclude.

Before the Minister begins, Sir, may I remind him of his courteous promise to tell us where agricultural labourers and the laity generally can get bacon at 8½d. a lb?

Can the Deputy tell us of anybody who paid anything more than 90/- a cwt. for bacon in the last few months?

8½d. per lb. was the figure the Minister mentioned.

Dr. Ryan

With regard to the Agricultural Wages Bill, Sir, Deputy Dillon and other Deputies made a suggestion that if the labourer were to get a just wage, and if the farmer were to be asked only to pay what he could afford to pay, there would, naturally, be a gap, and Deputy Dillon was the first to suggest that the State might make up the difference by way of a subsidy. Other Deputies followed Deputy Dillon with the same suggestion. Now, in the first place, I think that Deputy Dillon has supplied, in this House and in the country also, during his many long speeches, all the arguments that could possibly be used against subsidies. I do not think he ever loses an opportunity of condemning subsidies of all sorts, and it is hardly necessary for me to reiterate for Deputy Dillon's benefit all those arguments that are against subsidies. In the second place, however, suppose we were to agree to that: we would have to go somewhat further and we would have to be in a position to raise the money to pay the subsidy, and that is where the difficulty usually arises in this House. When we try to raise money for such a purpose as that, it is generally objected to by Deputy Dillon and other Deputies. However, let me give the House an idea of the cost. Deputy Dillon, according to his own speech, would not stand for a wage of anything less than 30/-a week for agricultural labourers. In fact, I think he said here that that was a very inadequate wage for an agricultural labourer, and seeing that we have very many agricultural labourers—or at least a substantial number—working at under 17/- a week, and the average being 21/- a week——

Dr. Ryan

Yes, 21/9. Every increase of 1/- in agricultural wages by way of subsidy would cost the Exchequer £300,000, so that, by bringing that up from 21/9 to 30/-, even, would cost about £3,000,000. I do not think that could be done, and I do not think there is any justification for this proposal. Deputy Dillon also spoke about other subsidies. He spoke about the huge subsidy we are paying on wheat, and I think that anybody who has been following the prices of wheat, both imported and home-grown wheat, will see what little foundation there is for that charge. As a matter of fact, since our wheat crop came on the market, the millers of our own home-grown wheat have been buying it at a certain price of about 27/6 to the farmer, plus delivery and so on, and they are not paying more than about 2/- a barrel higher than they would pay for imported wheat.

The Minister will agree that flour is 10/- a sack dearer here than it is across the water?

Dr. Ryan

I am not talking about flour. I am talking about wheat, and I am saying that, apart from whatever the millers may be charging for flour, they are paying for wheat about 2/- a barrel more than for imported wheat, and the flour millers themselves say that the Irish wheat is as good as foreign, and they are therefore prepared—and would be prepared, I take it, under ordinary circumstances—to pay as much for Irish wheat as for foreign wheat. It will be seen, therefore, that the whole subsidy which we heard so much about here yesterday amounts at the very best to about 2/- a barrel.

What accounts for the 10/- difference in the price of flour?

Dr. Ryan

I say again that I am talking about wheat.

Of course, the two things are closely connected—flour and wheat.

Dr. Ryan

They may be connected, but how can the Deputy talk about a subsidy? If the flour millers say— which I again repeat Deputy Dillon will not agree with—that the Irish wheat is as good as foreign wheat, and that they are paying only 2/- a barrel more for that than they have to pay for foreign wheat, there can be no great subsidy on it. What they pay for flour is a different matter.

What becomes of the 10/- we are paying on flour?

Dr. Ryan

If I had gone into that matter, I would probably have found that the Deputy is just as wrong on that as he is in his other statements; he is usually wrong. He talked about beet and he talked about coolie labour —not the Cooley in County Louth, of course, but the coolie labour that is known internationally. He talked about the horrible wages paid by the farmer in the cultivation of beet in this country. We have the position here that our own farmers are getting as good a price for their wheat and beet as the farmers in England. There is no economic war in England; perhaps I should rather put it this way, that the English farmer is getting a better price for his goods than the Irish farmer would get if there were no economic war. Yet they go on growing beet and wheat, and increasing their acreage under those crops, at the price we are giving to our farmers. They are better off than our farmers would be if there were no economic war; they must be well off, if we are to believe all we hear on the other side. They are prepared to increase their acreage of beet and wheat even though the price is no better than ours. That shows the weight which we can place on any statement made by Deputy Dillon. Deputy Davin asked me some questions about this Bill. He asked me, first of all, what I meant when I said that the farmers need have no apprehension about this Bill. For some reason or other he thought that I was in a position to assure the farmers that they would not have to pay a very high wage. What I meant—I said it as a matter of fact, I think, in the Second Reading speech—was that I was quite sure that the members of the board would have a sense of reality; that they would do justice to the labourer and at the same time not drive the farmer into bankruptcy, being sensible men; and I am quite sure that those two things are compatible.

You are an optimist.

Dr. Ryan

Deputies will say they are not; I say they are. We will wait and see. We have heard a lot about bankruptcy in the last four years. We have been waiting to see it, and it has not come yet.

I do not see the Minister for Finance chortling. He has a rather gloomy expression.

Dr. Ryan

We ought to smile to please the Deputy. I was asked also about the wages on forestry work. There has been a standard rule governing that matter, which was decided when Deputy Cosgrave's Government was in power, and the wages of foresters bear a certain relation to the agricultural wages of the district. If we fix an agricultural wage under this Bill, it will naturally have an influence on forestry wages, wages on public works, and other things which are calculated on the agricultural wage. In those cases there is paid a somewhat higher figure than the agricultural wage prevalent in the district.

I was also asked if the members of the committees and of the board would be paid out-of-pocket expenses. Yes; they will be paid out-of-pocket expenses. I was asked, too, when the Act might come into operation. I should think that when this Bill had passed through the Dáil it would probably take about four months before it could come into operation. There would, first of all, be the task of getting those committees and the board formed, and, from the time they are formed, it will take two months before the Order can become operative. I might say, for Deputy Brennan's information, that it will be necessary to go to the Civil Service Commissioners to get some of the staff; Deputy Brennan may be assured, therefore, that it will not be Fianna Fáil organisers who will be appointed to those posts.

I was asked by Deputy Davin whether we meant to provide for labourers living in. They are provided for under Section 17 (3). When the board is fixing the wage, they can also fix a certain value on whatever the labourer may be getting in the line of food, lodging or anything else.

Might I ask the Minister a question? Will this board have any regard to the present arrangement by insurance companies for fixing the value of a man's board and lodging? The Minister understands what I mean?

Dr. Ryan

I do not.

If a workman meets with an accident, and he is paid 12/-a week with board and lodging, or he is getting board and no lodging, the insurance companies fix the rate that will cover the whole thing. Will this new board have any regard to this arrangement when they are compiling the value of a man's board and lodging?

Dr. Ryan

I do not think the board will have regard to that. On the other hand the insurance company will have to have regard to the fixed wage. That is how it goes. I was asked how I proposed to select those committees. As I explained, that is a very difficult task. There are no such organisations which can be claimed to be truly representative of either the farmers or the agricultural labourers.

Not even Fianna Fáil!

Dr. Ryan

Well, they would be the most representative. However, we have never been selfish about these matters, and would like to see others on the board as well, if genuine farmers can be found outside the Fianna Fáil ranks.

There is only one organisation in the country.

Deputy Donnelly.

Dr. Ryan

I am not sure if the beet growers, for instance, are representative of agriculture. They are representative of the beet growers, who compose about 10 per cent. of the agricultural population. The I.A.O.S., again, represents a certain number of farmers. I do not know what the number might be in that case, but at any rate it is only a minority of the farmers. The best method which I have been able to think of so far is to ask the county committees of agriculture to suggest names for a panel from which those committees and the board can be formed. The committees will probably be fair enough as far as the farmer representatives are concerned, but I am not so sure that they will represent the agricultural labourers. A number of those committees are formed entirely of farmers; at least I should say there are no agricultural labourers on them, although there may be others besides farmers. On some of the committees, of course, there are representatives of agricultural labourers. If the committees would agree to suggest the names of people who would be representative of the agricultural labourers those names would certainly be welcomed.

I do not know of any organisation which can be said truly to represent the agricultural labourers. In fact, I suppose, as Deputy Curran has just suggested, the Parties here in the Dáil are the only Parties which do represent them in any way. If T.D.s would suggest the names, or if, better still, all the T.D.s of all Parties in the country were to recommend certain names, it would carry greater weight. That is all I can suggest at the moment. If any Deputy or anybody else can suggest to me a better way of getting representatives of farmers or agricultural labourers, I will be very glad to receive such a suggestion. I think Deputy Bennett, amongst others, said that were it not for the economic war there would be no great difficulty about paying a better wage to agricultural labourers. I think that Deputies who have looked into the figures of wages paid to agricultural labourers would not have argued in that way. Agricultural wages were coming down gradually for about three years before 1932. As a matter of fact the figure taken in July, 1932, was 23/6. Here are some figures as to the wages of those three years: In 1930 the wages were 24/6 a week, in 1931 these had come down to 24/3, and in 1932 the figure was 23/6. I do not know if the economic war had any time to make any change in the wages before July, 1932. But the fact is, at any rate, that wages were coming down before the start of the economic war, and since 1932 they have only come down by 2/6.

In the circumstances that is quite a bit.

Dr. Ryan

It is a lot but it does not make up the difference between starvation and frugal comfort.

It does not.

Dr. Ryan

Here is the point—there could have been a very good case made before 1932 for fixing the wages of agricultural labourers if the Government had thought of it.

Why did you not think of it sooner?

Dr. Ryan

As I say, there could have been a good case made at that time for the fixing of the wages considering that agricultural labourers were in some cases then getting less than 17/- a week. I know there are more labourers getting less than 17/- a week now, but at that time some of them were getting less than 17/-. If Deputy Dillon had been here, I am sure if his attention had been drawn to it, he would have been as eloquent as he is now in talking about the injustice of that state of things. At that time, when the farmers were well-off and when they could well afford to pay 30/- a week to the labourers, you had some of them actually paying less than 17/- a week. Yet the members of the then Government appear to have taken no notice of it.

Why did the Minister leave it so long himself?

Dr. Ryan

Well, the late Government were there for ten years and they were doing nothing about it. We are there now over four years. It is the difference between four years and infinity.

And eternity.

Dr. Ryan

Yes, eternity. This Bill, from the Opposition point of view, is like every Bill I brought before this House. I do not think I ever brought in any Bill that I was not told that the Bill was due to the economic war. Deputies opposite have got out of the way of thinking things out because it is so easy for them to say: "Only for the economic war we would be all right." If they wanted to be helpful and to see that something should be done they might leave the economic war aside and not be so keen on talking politics and so refrain from doing stupid things at the expense of the agricultural labourers. At any rate, there are now men earning less than 17/- a week and there is a necessity for this legislation. Deputy Holohan raised the point that it will be difficult to fix a minimum wage because you have, first of all, the class under 17 years of age. Even if you could provide for that class there is the case of good ploughmen and good cattlemen who are much more valuable to the farmer than the ordinary agricultural labourer. The board have power to define classes, and it is possible they may define a class between 18 and 19 years of age and fix a different wage from that which they would fix for men over 19. They may possibly fix a class for boys where the wage would be different from that fixed for the men. With regard to ploughmen and cattlemen, they may also fix a special minimum wage for ploughmen and cattlemen, a wage that may possibly lead to difficulties. But, remember, we have always this to fall back upon that it is only the minimum wage. The board will fix a minimum wage and every labourer, no matter what his abilities are, will be considered to be worth at least that. But skilled ploughmen and cattlemen will get more than the minimum wage. No matter how many classes they define there will always be a difficulty with certain men within each class. Some men will be better than others and they will, I presume, get a little more than the minimum wage. It is also possible that within any class there will be men not worth the minimum wage. It may be that these men will not get employment, but if the work has to be done they will be called upon. Deputy Corry made a contribution to the debate in which he said that it does not matter how much the board fixes. He said if the board fixes 50/- a week for agricultural labourers that as against that the farmers will get better prices for their beet and wheat. There are only 30,000 beet growers in the country. I do not know how many wheat-growers there are but I do know that the wheat-growers are a minority of the farmers. While we can fix a high price for beet and wheat because we consume them at home, we cannot fix the price in the case of butter and bacon for there we are depending on world prices. We have no influence on raising prices abroad unless we pay huge sums as bounties on our exports.

Is it the Minister's opinion that if wages are raised to a higher standard than that which prevails at the moment the farmers will get better prices for their beet and wheat?

Dr. Ryan

I would not like to answer that. There could be a very considerable rise in wages for certain groups and still the price of wheat would remain as it is. That, however, is a question to be considered later. We could, as Deputy Corry says, get a better price for all these things if we were to get rid of the export market entirely. But that would mean putting about 31.8 per cent. of our agricultural land out of production, because 31.8 per cent. of our agricultural produce is exported. That would mean also putting 31.8 per cent. of our agricultural population out of employment.

I hope the Deputies of the Minister's Party will note that carefully.

Dr. Ryan

I mention that fact so that Deputies of all Parties may note it. Deputies of my Party are intelligent men and they are aware of it already.

Deputy Corry's contribution is the most intelligent that the Minister has mentioned yet.

Dr. Ryan

As far as it goes it is very good, but when you go a bit further it is not so simple.

It would do for the platform all right.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Corry has done fairly well on the platform. Deputy Corry, Deputy Coburn and others spoke of bringing the agricultural wage up to the level of the wage paid to the town workers. There is no use in talking in that way, because in this matter we must take all the facts into consideration. We want to make the agricultural labourer as well-off as the town labourer. But that does not mean bringing his wage up to the level of the town labourer. We must take into consideration the rent the labourer pays in the town as against the country. We must take the price of fuel into consideration. The town labourer has to purchase coal and turf at a fairly high cost. The agricultural labourer can provide fuel more cheaply. Deputies know that milk and vegetables are much cheaper in the country. That fact, too, must be taken into consideration by the board.

The board, having considered the problem of putting the agricultural labourer into as good a position as the town labourer, will, of course, give due weight to the matters I have just mentioned, and when they have done that they will have done good work.

Deputy Finlay said that our agricultural labourers were the worst paid on the face of the earth. There is no use in exaggerating conditions. We can reproach ourselves with many things but there is no use in making things out worse than they are. The fact is that in most European countries a lower wage is paid to agricultural labourers than the wage paid in the Saorstát. I am not touching on the wages paid in Asia and other countries but I know that most European countries pay a lower wage to agricultural labourers than the wage paid here. There is a number of European countries in which a better wage is paid, but the number that pays a better wage than we do is not as high as the number that pays a lesser wage.

Will the Minister tell us the names?

Dr. Ryan

I will not.

You should know them.

Dr. Ryan

I do not want to talk of the countries that are paying less.

Will you tell us the countries that are paying more?

Dr. Ryan

If the Deputy goes to the Library he can see the publication dealing with agricultural wages.

May I say respectfully that if the matter is published the Minister need not be diffident about mentioning the figures.

Dr. Ryan

I am.

It is a strange delicacy of feeling.

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy has as much time to look it up as I have. I know that he does not like to believe that other European countries are paying less. He does not like to believe that any country could be as bad as this one.

Could the Minister tell us the countries that are paying more?

Dr. Ryan

Great Britain, Scotland, Wales, Denmark, certainly, and Sweden. That is all I know of definitely. I do not deny that there are others.

You can put three of these countries into one and call them Great Britain.

Dr. Ryan

That would shorten it.

Great Britain and the Scandinavian countries.

Dr. Ryan

Most of the Scandinavian countries. Deputy J. P. Kelly asked for information about the board and whether the two months waiting period was for each committee. It is the concurrent two months. The Deputy also asked what standard would be prescribed for agricultural wages. All I can say is that it is a matter for the board to decide what the standard should be. Deputy Keyes asked about the position of domestic servants. It is laid down very definitely that any person who does domestic service as part of the ordinary work will be excluded from the Act. If a girl does a certain amount of domestic work in the house, such as looking after fires or getting meals, and if she also does agricultural work, such as milking cows or feeding pigs, she does not come under the Act. That is not a departure from the existing legislation. The 1917 Act which applied here, and which is still in operation in Great Britain, has the same provision and I do not think there is any reason why we should depart from that. Deputy Brennan said this was a milk-and-water measure. I do not know what he meant. The Deputy often makes remarks like that about measures introduced here. He condemns them but he does not tell us why. He did not go so far as to point out how, if he were framing the Bill, he would make it otherwise than a milk-and-water measure. I do not know in what way it is a milk-and-water measure. The 1917 Act which is in operation in Great Britain is much the same as this. I will point out where the difference is later. I do not know how Deputy Brennan in his wisdom would frame a Bill to deal with this question and not have it a milk-and-water one. There is nothing very positive in such criticism. It is negative criticism, as the Deputy has not suggested how it could be improved. He also said that this measure was autocratic compared with the British Act. What is the difference between the two? Deputy Brennan said this was autocracy because if there was disagreement on the board the chairman decides. In the British Act a majority decides. There are four Labour representatives and four farmer representatives and if they do not agree the chairman decides. In England if four voted one way and four another way whatever side the chairman voted with decided the matter. That is the difference between autocracy and democracy.

What about the three neutrals?

Dr. Ryan

Their votes do not count. That is Deputy Brennan's idea of autocracy.

Will the Minister say why he would not allow the majority to decide?

Dr. Ryan

It amounts to the same thing, except that in case two farmer or two labour representatives could not turn up, the four on the other side would get their own way.

Why not make provision for that?

Dr. Ryan

We are making provision for it by saying that the chairman decides. That is the easiest way.

Dr. Ryan

We will take it that four will vote one way and four another way.

Dr. Ryan

In the alternative, if the chairman says: "I have heard your views and here is my decision," that is autocracy but, if he says that he will vote with one group of four that is the essence of democracy, according to Deputy Brennan. Deputy Cosgrave says that there might be one reasonable farmer who would vote with the labour people, and in that case under the British Act the chairman would have to agree. Under this Bill he will not have to agree. There is the difference.

There might be three reasonable men there.

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

They do not count.

Dr. Ryan

In that case, if the chairman found one side wanting a certain thing and half of the other side going to side with him, I do not believe there is any possibility of the chairman doing otherwise than saying that is the decision.

There is no security for that. Is it not fair criticism?

Dr. Ryan

Quite fair criticism. After all, I hold this is the easiest way to work it and to get the same results. Deputy Brennan said that this was like other Bills, and that we were going to have more inspectors and more Fianna Fáil organisers. I remember quoting an Irish proverb here before: "Sás a dhéanta a chíonadh air," which means that the person who would think of that is the very person who would do it himself, if he got the chance. Deputy MacDermot said he did not think the results hoped for by me could be achieved under this Bill.

I said by this Bill alone.

Dr. Ryan

That makes a difference. I did not know if Deputy MacDermot was taking Deputy Brennan's view. What I thought he meant was that there could not be an improvement unless conditions improved. That matter was dealt with before.

I would not go so far as saying that it could not be improved. I suggested that it could not do all that was hoped for.

Dr. Ryan

I understand. Deputy McGilligan, who, I suppose, knows more about law than he does about agriculture or agricultural economics, started by saying that the chairman would have to decide in all cases, because if there was disagreement on the board, he said, the chairman would decide by voting against all. If Deputy McGilligan had read the Bill, I do not think it would take any great training in law to see that that is an absolutely wrong interpretation, because it is laid down very definitely in Section 13 (b) (1):—

In case all such ordinary members pass unanimously a resolution in favour of the making of such order in terms specified in such resolution, such order shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to have been duly made in such terms by the board at such meeting...

Any ordinary Deputy like myself could follow that, and give it a legal interpretation.

Is it not from the ordinary members that the chairman is selected?

Dr. Ryan

No. Deputy McGilligan last night talked about the £11,000,000 promised by Fianna Fáil at one stage and of the £6,000,000 that Fianna Fáil claims to have given the farmers. He also talked about the farmers of Wexford. I deprecated last night the note that Deputy McGilligan brought into the debate. He might very well have left these things alone, because the farmers of Wexford, whether they got part of the £11,000,000 or not, were not going to rely on Deputy McGilligan's promises at any rate, whatever promises he might make.

Might I ask the Minister another question? In the event of the chairman being absent, an ordinary member can be appointed as chairman. He then has two positions: that of chairman and that of an ordinary member.

Dr. Ryan

Not an ordinary member, I think.

Dr. Ryan

I will look into that. The acting chairman can only be appointed from one of the neutral members.

Then he has two positions. He is acting chairman and an ordinary member.

Dr. Ryan

We want to make sure that it will be one of the neutral members who will be appointed, if that is not already provided for.

He is an ordinary member and chairman as well.

Dr. Ryan

That is not very clear, and we want to make a distinction between the ordinary members representing parties and the neutral members. Deputy McGilligan also went on to speak of the wages that had been paid under this Fianna Fáil Government. I had an opportunity of looking up the figures since. I find that the average wage that was paid in 1936 to a labourer living in, a man who got his board and lodging, and assuming that he was working 56 hours a week, which is the usual time for agricultural labourers, that he would have been getting under this Fianna Fáil Government 2.15d. per hour. Deputy McGilligan said the figure was 2d. per hour. He was not very far wrong. We would all be inclined to agree with him that it is a scandalous wage for any man to try to live on. But what I want to draw attention to is this, that in 1931, under the Cumann na nGaedheal Government, when people were not being treated as slaves or as coolies, when people were very much better off and when we had the great British market, the farmers at that time were paying their labourers 2.4d. per hour. So that for a farthing an hour we were told that Fianna Fáil had reduced the lot of the agricultural labourer to a most pitiable condition and so on. I do not think I could be capable of using the vituperation and venom in my language that Deputy McGilligan used when he spent half an hour telling us the state to which we had brought the country by bringing the wages of agricultural labourers down from 2.4d. per hour, which was the rate in Deputy Cosgrave's time, to 2.15d. at present. There is no great crime in that. What I mean is, that if it were criminal to do that, then Deputy Cosgrave was at least guilty of a misdemeanour in leaving the rate at 2.4d. per hour. I think I can claim that even if the agricultural labourers have had their wages reduced they have at least got compensatory advantages under this Government in the way of unemployment assistance and other benefits. They have got increased benefits under the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act, under the Old Age Pensions Act, and under many other Acts passed by this Government.

But the good labouring man that the Minister spoke of yesterday did not get any of these benefits. For instance, he did not get anything under the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act.

Dr. Ryan

He may never get anything under that Act, but he may look forward to the Old Age Pensions Act and to unemployment assistance during an idle period. I do not know why Deputy McGilligan should attack us so bitterly, seeing that if wages have come down a little we have balanced that up by all those other benefits. If I were capable of making an attack in the same language as Deputy McGilligan used, I think I would be justified in attacking the people opposite for not doing some of these things five or six years ago. Deputy McGilligan spoke of the output for 1934. He spoke from the same brief as Deputy Dillon and made the same mistakes, but I must admit that Deputy McGilligan used the brief a little bit more intelligently than Deputy Dillon. It takes a great deal from the weight of the Deputy's case when we know that we who are said to be responsible for bringing the out put down to £40,000,000 in 1934 are also responsible for having brought it up by £10,000,000. After all, a Government that can bring up the farmers' income by £5,000,000 a year in two years is not to be despised.

The Minister took a bad case for that. He took two months in the year contrary to the advice that he should take separate months.

Dr. Ryan

If the Deputy would base his figures on as sound a foundation as we do, he would not do too badly.

The Minister brought it up by throwing over some of his old fallacies.

Dr. Ryan

I do not remember having any fallacy to throw over. It appears at any rate that my claim is not being contested: that this Government was responsible for increasing the income of our farmers by £10,000,000 in the two years from 1934 to 1936. In view of that, I do not think that we deserve to be attacked as Deputy McGilligan attacked us last night. We deserve, in fact, to be congratulated for bringing the farmers back so rapidly to a position of prosperity, and basing that prosperity on such a sound foundation that no outside country can attack us.

What has the Ministry got to do with world prices?

Dr. Ryan

What have we got to do with bringing the figure down from £64,000,000 to £40,000,000? We will be blamed for bringing it down, but we are to get no credit for bringing it up. According to the Deputy we must take responsibility for bringing the figure down, but must not take responsibility for bringing it up.

Nothing annoys the Minister so much as to have anyone point out his bad case to him.

Dr. Ryan

I will make a pact with the Deputy if he has any fair play in him. It is this: do not blame us for either thing, and I am satisfied. We did not bring it down and we did not bring it up. It is all due to world prices, and we will take neither the credit nor the blame.

Where the Minister has interfered he has damaged the industry, but where there has been an advantage to the industry it is an accident. It is world prices.

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy has been singing that to the winds for a long time.

And will continue to.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday the 25th November.