Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 6 Mar 1935

Vol. 55 No. 3

Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 52—Agriculture (Resumed).

Question again proposed:—

That a further Supplementary sum not exceeding £10 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1935, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Agriculture and of certain services administered by that Office, including sundry Grants-in-Aid.

Mr. Dillon

When the public business was last adjourned we were discussing Estimate No. 52, and I asked the Minister to make a comprehensive statement in connection with the terms upon which the beet growers in the Cooley area were going to be asked to grow beet and to explain to the House why, when the Government stipulated, as I think they ought to have stipulated, for a living wage for the operatives in the factory, they did not insist on a price for beet which would make it possible for the producers thereof to pay the agricultural labourers a living wage as well, and why it is that the Minister for Agriculture is prepared to say in that connection that 24/- a week for a 54-hour week is a fair wage for an agricultural labourer when he is prepared to sustain the thesis that 42/- a week, or even more, is not in any sense excessive for a 44-hour week in the case of a factory operative. I do not think that the terms of employment enjoyed by the factory hands in the beet-sugar factories are in any way too generous, but I think that they throw into very striking relief the standard of living which the Minister for Agriculture sets up for that section of the community for which he is primarily responsible.

I think the Minister should also take the opportunity on sub-head O9 to give us some further information about the future that he sees for his wheat scheme. He knows, and most of my colleagues know, that I regard the wheat policy of the Government as a pure fraud, calculated to get our people nowhere. It is at present being heavily subsidised by the State; I believe it is being materially subsidised by the consumer and it is being partially subsidised by the ratepayers through the county committees of agriculture. I think the responsibility devolves upon the Minister to tell the House and the country what advice he has to offer to the farmer who planted wheat in 1934 as to what he should plant on the same land in 1935, 1936, 1937 and 1938 and, having advised him in that regard, I think the responsibility also rests upon him of telling farmers generally how they are to dispose of the crops that will be growing in the four years to which I have referred.

It is interesting and striking how the present Administration are beginning to learn sense. I remember the time when I was told that to suggest that we should cultivate an agricultural surplus for the purpose of exporting it and selling it on the markets of the world with a view to purchasing the requirements we wanted, was high treason, playing England's game. Now I discover that the doctrine of an agricultural surplus is not so heretical as it at first seemed. I see the Minister for Industry and Commerce broke out on Monday night and declared that under any circumstances we must have foreign trade and, in fact, during our reconstruction period, our purchases abroad of raw material and of industrial equipment must tend to increase rather than to diminish. Nevertheless, he added, our aim has been to use our powers as a purchaser of manufactured goods to insist that we be allowed to pay for our imports in whole or in part in agricultural exports. Then he goes on to describe how the exports of this country must be for a very considerable time our agricultural surplus.

I invite the Minister for Agriculture to tell the people what steps he is taking, or proposes to take, in order to secure for them a market wherein to dispose of that agricultural surplus which his colleague considers is indispensable and which he, by the instructions he is giving to the farmers, is compelling them to produce. Does he stand over the statement made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, speaking at the National Agricultural and Industrial Development Association that, having made trade agreements with Germany, Belgium and Spain, we are now in a position in which we can consider confining our trade relations to countries with which such arrangements have been made? Does that mean that the Government intend to inform the people that the extent of the alternative markets which they have been able to secure comprises the German, Belgian and Spanish markets, and does it mean that our only alternative markets in the future to the British market are those three, and if it does mean that, are the Government going far enough along the road of common sense to realise that if the country is to survive at all the British market must be recovered for our people and that the commodities which the Minister for Agriculture is compelling our people to produce must be disposed of in that market and, if they are not so disposed of, not only is agriculture but industry and every other branch of the body politic going to crash to the ground?

If he has realised those things, when is he going to bring pressure to bear on his colleagues to make them do something?

I see with reference to sub-head O13 that the Minister for Agriculture has come in for encomiums from a member of the British Research Society who says that he has led in the way of distributing the surplus of a particular agricultural produce amongst the poor of the country. I did not notice that the expert went on to congratulate him and his colleagues on having increased the ranks of the poor to such magnificent proportions that there would be provided in this country a consuming power for free beef adequate to consume the surplus we are producing. I consider that the situation created in consequence of the distribution of free beef is extremely undesirable. I have already pointed out in this House that it calls to mind one of the most unattractive elements of a period in the history of this country which had better be forgotten. It is demoralising and shocking to the sensibilities of our people to be reduced to a condition in which they have to return to the soup kitchen that obtained 70 or 80 years ago and it is creating in the country a general impression that the Government are acting in a grossly irresponsible way.

I was recently informed of one household which, under the terms of the various enactments made by this House, has become entitled to 21 lbs. of beef per week, and two members of the household have to be sent into town every week to carry home the free beef. Such an administration of any scheme is calculated to bring, not only the Government, but this House into gross disrepute. It is perfectly manifest that a scheme which results in nearly two stone of meat being carried home to a country house every week is not meeting the real necessities of the situation. It is a most slipshod, unsatisfactory and wasteful method of administering relief and is probably resulting in deserving people being unable to get all they are entitled to, while those who do not want it and should not get public relief are having it thrust upon them.

Under sub-head O14, we have money appropriated for travelling expenses, incidental expenses and fees to valuers under the Tobacco Act, 1934. I want to know what value we are getting for this tobacco legislation. The last time this matter came before the House, I drew the attention of the Minister to the fact that the original policy of the Government in connection with tobacco was that there was to be no interference of any kind with the Revenue authorities. In fact, President de Valera, who is so fond of talking of mandates, got a mandate to introduce legislation which would put an end to all supervision of the tobacco business by the Revenue Commissioners. When I quoted this in the House the Minister for Agriculture interrupted and said: "I do not believe that. I do not believe President de Valera ever said any such thing." Deputy McGilligan's reply was: "Why does the Minister for Agriculture deny that President de Valera said something which is quoted, when he does not even know where the quotation comes from?""I would not believe it", said the Minister for Agriculture, "because it is too foolish". Let me assure the Minister that folly is no criterion whereby to judge past dicta of Fianna Fáil Ministers or of the President of the Fianna Fáil Government.

I am in a position now to quote the words used by President de Valera in an interview published in the Evening Herald of June 19, 1929, and those words are as follows:—

"I believe that the growing of tobacco here should be altogether free from duty, and there should be no Governmental interference or supervision. The removal of officials now on the inspection and assessment work associated with Excise regulations will, of course, obviate anything in the nature of administrative cost to the Government. That is one advantage over any scheme of direct subsidy..."

Now, Deputy O'Reilly may get ready to bow, because President de Valera invoked him. The President went on:

"If the present duty is removed in accordance with the terms of the motion submitted by Mr. O'Reilly, a member of our Party, there need not be permanently any great loss to the revenue. If there is any loss in the first years it will be due to the fact that a valuable Irish industry is being resuscitated."

Now we are faced with a Supplementary Estimate to finance the operations of an extremely complicated Tobacco Act which strictly restricts the growing of tobacco by Irish nationals in Ireland and there are no motions being set down in the name of Deputy Matthew O'Reilly from the County Meath, nor is the President on the floor of the House to explain to us that regulation of this kind is folly and that the proper way to encourage the tobacco industry is to withdraw all Government or Revenue Commissioners' interference with the industry altogether.

The Minister for Agriculture, having undergone a period of three years' education at the hands of the Opposition, has come to the conclusion that such language is incredibly silly. I quite agree with him. But the misfortune for this country is that it takes three years to teach the Minister for Agriculture that such things are incredibly silly, and after three years more the Minister for Agriculture will be telling us that the economic war was incredibly silly. But really his education is becoming monstrously expensive. It is running, not only into six figures, but into seven figures and may run into eight figures, before we make him conscious of the follies that he and his colleagues have been guilty of, both before they came into office and since. But Deputy O'Reilly is giving no assistance to educate the Minister for Agriculture. He must be unrepentant. He will not charge me with any discourtesy when I say that the Minister's language suggests that he was probably the clown at the circus six years ago. I suggest that Deputy O'Reilly ought to tell the Minister for Agriculture that he is wrong and that Deputy O'Reilly is right and was right; or else Deputy O'Reilly ought to say to the Minister for Agriculture: "I realise I made an ass of myself six years ago and I made President de Valera make an ass of himself, which is worse. Ought we not both mend our hands now and try and make some compensation to the people for the folly and the fraud we perpetrated on them when looking for their votes?"

I do not wish, Sir, to go back over the matters which arose when I first opened on the Estimate but I do request the Minister to give us full particulars with reference to sub-head M 8, which deals with the butter purchasing scheme, and M 9, which deals with the purchase and export of eggs. I feel that whatever benefits may be accruing as a result of trade agreements for the disposal of eggs, they are not being distributed evenly throughout the country. My experience is, in regard to the German market in any case, that the trade seems to be centred in the hands of a few shippers here in Dublin. Being under that impression, I may be labouring under a misapprehension, but at least I think I can justifiably charge the Minister with not having communicated to the registered egg traders of the country full particulars of the means whereunder they can share in whatever quota we have secured in the German and Spanish markets. I should like also to draw his attention to the fact that the German market is at the present time apparently demanding that nothing but the equivalent of extra selected and selected eggs should be sent there, and are rejecting the "mediums" and the lower grades. Now, for good or ill, our principal egg market is going to be the British market, and it is highly undesirable that this trade agreement with Germany or with Spain should be allowed to create a situation under which all the best eggs of our production should go to Germany and the Continent and the leavings—the "mediums," the "trades" and the pullets eggs, if there still are pullets eggs—should be going to England.

I do not know whether the Minister made any stipulation in the trade agreement which he concluded with Germany, that they should take eggs according to the grades we ship and should take a fair proportion of each grade we had to offer. If we did not, I think the time has come to make representations to the German Government pointing out that if the trade agreement provides for eggs it is not open to the German Government, in pursuit of that agreement, to exclude certain classes of eggs and to constrain us to ship them nothing but the top grade at the expense of our other customers. There is a wide field to be covered in answering on this Estimate and I trust the Minister will take the fullest advantage of the occasion and inform the House and the country as to what his intentions are in regard to the matters which fall under the sub-heads contained in the Estimate.

Mr. Bennett

We have, at various intervals in the last few years, been discussing ever increasing Estimates for the maintenance of agriculture. One gets tired of repeating oneself in arguments on the economic war and like matters and I do not intend to refer to them on this occasion. We have in the Estimate presented to us an increase under several sub-heads, notably for the improvement of the creamery industry. There is an additional provision for the improvement, reorganisation and extension of the creamery industry by the purchase of creameries and associated businesses. Then there is an additional Estimate for the butter purchase scheme, for the Horse Breeding Act, for the Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Act and there are various other additions to the already heavy expenditure on agriculture.

I dare say that this Vote like all other Votes for Agriculture will be passed by this House. Any Vote, even one providing for the most extravagant expenditure, would in present circumstances be passed by the House but one has to express regret that the huge sum, amounting to millions, which the Government has spent in the last few years could not have been devoted to better purposes, that it could not have been spent in strengthening our hold on the world's biggest market, the British market, to the detriment of other exporters to that market. We might easily have doubled our exports to that market were it not for certain circumstances. Other countries have increased their exports to it but we, the nearest country, instead of improving our position, have shown a lamentable falling off in our exports. One hesitates to blame the Minister for Agriculture for that state of affairs. He is rather the victim of circumstances than anything else. The Minister reminds me forcibly of a person lost in a forest whose every fresh step only further increases his troubles. He is walking more or less in a circle round the fringe of things. Practically every effort he made to help agriculture has been, except on one or two occasions, barren of results, in the sense of advancing the prosperity of agriculturists.

The position in agriculture has often been referred to in this House in the past 18 months and those references need no repetition now. We had a notable admission from a prominent member of the Government Party in another place yesterday when he candidly stated that the position of the agriculturist was so bad that he was at the moment a prey to any influence brought to bear on him, even to break the law. It comes to this, then, that we have an admission from a leading member on the Fianna Fáil Benches that the position of the farmers is probably worse than it was at any time in the history of the State or even before the Free State came into existence, so bad, in fact, that the ordinary decent farmers are liable to be influenced by indiscreet statements, to commit acts which one reasonably might expect them not to commit. One sees no real hope in the situation. It will not serve any useful purpose to discuss the various Estimates line for line and word for word. That has been done on several occasions in the last two years without advancing the position in any way. There seems to be only one real solution for the agricultural difficulty. It is a solution that the Ministry hesitate to adopt and there does not appear to be any prospect of their adopting it in the near future. Until they do adopt it, the position of the Minister for Agriculture in this House is not going to be an enviable one. With our chief market for agricultural products materially damaged and, in fact, rapidly disappearing, any artificial efforts that the Minister makes to help the deplorable position make only a small inroad on the damage created.

Personally, I see no light on the horizon except that some miracle will persuade the Government to admit candidly that their policy is a failure. To continue in the policy of shutting out the market that we possessed two or three years ago can only mean that there can be no hope whatever for the resuscitation of agriculture and that any money we vote in this House will be, in the main, useless expenditure. We have had three years' experience of continual experiments, of the taking of steps and retracing of steps, of passing measures and so on, all designed to benefit the farmer. Despite all these efforts, the farmers' position has got gradually worse and will continue to get worse until the step about which I have spoken is taken. Where is the hindrance to taking this step? In mentioning this, one has to appeal to a larger audience than that represented by the Minister for Agriculture. The Minister for Agriculture, however, is not without his individual influence, and perhaps it is his Department that is suffering more from the action of the Ministry than others. One can only hope that it is not useless to appeal to the Minister for Agriculture to encourage his colleagues to take the one step necessary.

Reading over the financial returns of the various Colonial States, we have found that, despite what one might call quotas and other methods of restriction, nearly all of them have managed to increase their exports to the British market. We alone, who ought to have been able to take advantage of the position more readily than any distant Colony, are in the position that our exports to Great Britain have fallen off lamentably. Personally, if one is permitted to allude to the national aspect in this particular debate—and I expect one is not—I should be prepared to dish any hopes of a particular Republic, or to dish any dreams even of an ideal in national status, if some method could be found of improving the present position of the unfortunate agriculturists. I do not know if Deputies opposite realise fully the position of the farmers. They surely ought to by now. I know of cases of old men who have been driven prematurely to their graves by the anxiety of the present situation. It must be familiar to everybody in this House who thinks, that old people's deaths have been hastened by the nervous endeavour to maintain themselves and their families.

We have had it thrown at us from the Front Benches opposite—it has been thrown at me particularly—that we were in such an excellent position that there should be no necessity for us to make the case that we could not pay our liabilities. In the present circumstances, I do not think that anybody in this House, or outside this House, who is engaged in agriculture, ought to be ashamed to admit the circumstances that prevail even so far as he himself is concerned individually. I have had it levelled at me from the Front Benches opposite that I have been enticing other people by my example to repudiate their debts. My position, as I have stated in this House on several occasions, is no better, and perhaps a little worse than that of many of my unfortunate fellow-sufferers. If the Minister for Agriculture, or the Minister who presides over the Land Commission, will agree to take a look at my financial returns, I shall gladly give them to him. If the Minister for Agriculture, after looking at those returns, should be willing to undertake that a cheque issued by me to pay my Land Commission commitments, my rates commitments, and my other commitments of that nature, outside my purely private debts, would be honoured, well, I am willing to draw the cheque. Unfortunately, however, I cannot find myself in that particular position.

There are hundreds of unfortunate people in this country that I knew two years ago to be very well off; men that I would not have hesitated to face two or three years ago and borrow anything from £100 to £1,000. These men have come to me in the last three months with stories of misfortune that would appeal even to Deputy Norton or any of the leaders of the Labour Party. Their position is practically worse than that of the neediest recipient of outdoor relief and free beef. I know of an instance —I shall repeat it in this House and it bears repeating—of an industrious, hard-working farmer, with seven or eight little children—a man whom I saw myself at a late hour in the night doing work that was woman's work, cleaning and washing and putting to bed those little children. That should have been a mother's work, only that there was no mother; but it should have been another woman's work, if the money could have been provided for the purpose, but the money was not there. This man is one of the sufferers from the campaign we have had to collect the land annuities.

An Ceann Comhairle

I would call the Deputy's attention to the fact that on a Supplementary Estimate the Committee is confined to a discussion of the items of that Estimate. I should like to know to which particular item in the Vote the Deputy could relate his remarks.

Mr. Bennett

Well, Sir, this particular man to whom I have referred is a dairy farmer, and one of the hardestworking and best dairy farmers in Limerick—a man who was able to provide for himself and his family in comfort and whose home, up to two or three years ago, would have delighted anybody to enter. That home was mainly maintained out of the profits of dairying and supplying milk to creameries. We have had to increase the Estimates to maintain that particular industry in the last two or three years and we have additional expenditure in this particular Estimate. My point is that the net result of all this expenditure to that particular farmer is that his position is considerably worsened and that he is driven to desperation. I maintain that there are hundreds like him whose position, despite all this expenditure, is practically desperate.

I will not weary the patience of the House by attempting to go on painting a picture which ought to be familiar to everyone, but I appeal, in God's name, to every Deputy, whether on these benches, the Fianna Fáil Benches, the Labour Benches or the Independent Benches, to use every atom of strength, and to make the greatest appeal that is possible to the Ministry, to take the one and only step that will bring about a return of prosperity to agriculture, making some arrangement by which this country will return to the position it was in three years ago, when there was free entry into the world's greatest market. and to do it now before it is too late. If an arrangement is not made now, or if the chance is delayed, other countries will continue to enter that market to our detriment until, finally, we will arrive at the position that there will be no market left for our goods, and neither the expenditure this House votes, nor any efforts of an individual Minister, will save the situation for the farmers in the not far distant future. As far as my voice can appeal to any Minister, without reference to party politics, I urge that now is the time to act.

We have had expressions from a Minister in another country that the door is open. We have also had expressions from the leader of the Fianna Fáil Party in this State that he is hopeful for further arrangements on the lines of the recent trade agreement. If the door is open on one side and if the leading Minister on the other side is full of hope for the betterment of the position, there should be no material hindrance to a settlement. If it can be brought about no one here will withhold whatever credit can possibly accrue to the Ministry. I venture to say that much of the sufferings of the last three years amongst the agricultural community would be forgotten, and that some of us who have said harsh things of the Government will refrain from repeating them. It is practically impossible for a Deputy who represents farmers to view the sufferings amongst the various sections of the industry and restrain himself sufficiently from committing some slight indiscretion of speech for which he might be made to suffer the penalties of the law. It is in order to save the position that I appeal to the Ministry. Even though we have appealed in vain on many occasions during this year there are particular reasons why we may expect that the people on the other side of the Channel would be more amenable to a settlement. The Government should take the necessary steps to make the only arrangement that can ever resuscitate the agricultural industry here.

Mr. Curran

I should like to have an explanation from the Minister of the item of £45,000 in this Estimate dealing with the purchase and export of cattle. Has that item a reference to the Minister's purchase and sale of cattle at 11/- a cwt.? In connection with this transaction, is the Minister paying the scheduled price fixed in the Act, 22/- per cwt.? It is a very serious matter if the Minister who, under the Act, is a dealer, so to speak, is losing 50 per cent. on such transactions. I do not want to go over ground that has already been covered, but I want an explanation as I know that the Minister is selling cattle at 11/- per cwt., delivered.

Mr. Norton

Questions have been addressed to the Minister designed to ascertain what his Department has done towards ensuring that the price fixed in the Slaughter of Cattle and Sheep Act is being paid to farmers. We have been told by the Minister that persons aggrieved can sue the purchasers for the balance which they should have received in respect to the sale of cattle. But nothing very effec tive appears to have been done by the Department in the matter. The Minister has added about 120 supervisors to his staff under this Act, and I am sure these officials cannot be going around the country without knowing that there are complaints, which I believe are well-founded, that farmers are not being paid the prices fixed in the Act for cattle sold to butchers. I can hardly imagine the Minister not being aware that the terms of the Act are being evaded by butchers, who are squeezing farmers because they know that in any event the cattle must be sold, and that farmers in such circumstances are often prepared to take any price they can get, rather than press for what they are entitled to. I should like the Minister to tell the House what has been the experience of his Department; to say whether he is perfectly satisfied that the fixed prices are being paid; and, if not, what steps he proposes to take to deal with the situation. It is simply absurd if the Legislature is to pass an Act to provide fixed prices for farmers' cattle if that can be evaded with apparent immunity by people outside. While cattle are being bought at less than the fixed prices the price of meat to cash customers has been raised. on the pretext that the butchers must now pay fixed prices. Is the Minister quite satisfied that the increase in meat prices to cash customers is justified, in view of the fact that there are universal complaints that the provisions of the Act are not being complied with?

The House will remember that a keen controversy developed recently between the Beet Growers' Association and the Sugar Company as to the price to be paid for beet. In the course of the controversy the Department of Agriculture stepped in, and proceeded to supply to beet growers particulars of the estimated cost of producing beet. One of the most striking features of the statement furnished by the Department was that it was estimated labour could be obtained at 5d. per hour. The statement was issued officially by the Department. It was not issued by the Minister, but I should like to know if it was issued with his authority, and if it is the official policy of his Department to stand over a wage of 5d. per hour for labour in the production of beet.

What is the experience of his Department? Are they satisfied with the fixed price paid? If the Department of Agriculture considers that 5d. per hour is a reasonable rate to pay agricultural labourers engaged in the production of beet I wonder would the same Department give those people a prescription as to how to live; as to how a man is to keep his wife, feed, clothe and house his children on a wage of 5d. per hour. If the Minister's Department considers that a reasonable wage for a man engaged in beet production, the Department ought to be able to put its cards on the table and show that it is a reasonable, Christian wage. If it is not a Christian wage the Department has no right to issue this as its estimate of cost in the name of the community producing beet. I hope the Minister will repudiate that statement. Every one knows that 5d. per hour is a starvation wage.

Mr. Belton

You voted for it.

Mr. Norton

I voted for nothing of the kind.

Mr. Belton

You voted for the Sugar Act fixing the price of beet at so much per ton which fixed the price for labour.

Mr. Norton

Nothing of the kind. The Deputy will have an opportunity for showing how the Act fixes the wage to be paid to labourers.

An Ceann Comhairle

Not on this Estimate. The only reference to beet in this Estimate is a grant for sugar beet grown in the Cooley district. It has nothing whatever to do with the wages paid to agricultural labourers.

Mr. Belton

If the wages are 5d. per hour in Kildare what will they be in Cooley?

Dr. Ryan

The Act has nothing to do with that.

Mr. Norton

No, but the Department issued instructions to the beet growers that fivepence per hour was a reasonable wage.

Dr. Ryan

No such thing.

Mr. Norton

Will the Minister tell us to what purpose was the statement of fivepence per hour issued?

Dr. Ryan

I will, of course.

Mr. Norton

I do not know what the explanation is going to be, but it was a peculiar statement to make. In the statement issued it is perfectly clear that the Department regarded fivepence per hour as reasonable.

Dr. Ryan

It is a different thing to say fivepence was paid and that it was a just wage. We did not say it was a just wage.

Mr. Norton

Therefore, there was no effect in it.

Dr. Ryan

There was no necessity for it.

Mr. Norton

I am not clear how the Minister is so satisfied.

Mr. Dillon

Did not the Minister include that in costings of his own?

Dr. Ryan

Yes, and a few farmers are paying it. I never said it was just.

Mr. Norton

The Department is giving in to the farmers by that in order to give them an inducement.

Dr. Ryan

No.

Mr. Norton

The statement is issued in such a way as to make clear that the Department is going to give its approbation to fivepence per hour to labourers.

Dr. Ryan

On the present costings.

Mr. Norton

The beet growers were engaged in a controversy with the sugar company and one of the points made by the beet growers was that the cost of labour represented a certain sum in the production of the beet. And the Department came out and explained that in the circumstances existing fivepence per hour was the rate paid for labour.

Dr. Ryan

That is right.

Mr. Norton

Does the Department regard fivepence per hour as a reasonable rate?

Dr. Ryan

They do not.

Mr. Norton

Does the Department propose to take steps to correct the effect of the statement?

Mr. Belton

Does the Department propose to secure a better price for beet?

An Ceann Comhairle

The price of beet does not arise in this Estimate.

Mr. Dillon

It does.

An Ceann Comhairle

I thought I heard some Deputy say "It does."

Mr. Dillon

My remark did not refer to the Chair's ruling. On a point of order, what I respectfully submit is that it is relevant to this Estimate to discuss the general question of wages and prices paid for sugar beet, and also the question of wages and the prices paid for beet in the Cooley area, because we have here under one head the appropriation of money specifically for that purpose—"Additional sugar beet grown in the Cooley district." That is a grant apparently to facilitate the growth of beet in this area, and the submission I make, and the submission that Deputy Norton was making, was that the conditions in which the beet was grown are a public scandal; that to sanction money to encourage the growing of beet under slave conditions would be a public scandal, for which this House should not vote public money.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair is quite convinced that reference to disputes between the beet growers and the Department is not relevant to this Estimate, as that dispute has no reference to Cooley.

Mr. Norton

There is an item providing for additional payment of a bounty on home-grown millable wheat. When I observe that we are making provision for a bounty on home-grown wheat of millable quality and, that in various other Estimates before the House, provision will be made for the payment of bounties upon various kinds of agricultural produce, I call attention to the fact that all these provisions are in respect of bounties to the owners of the produce and seem to take no cognisance of the necessity of securing decent returns to the agricultural workers engaged in the production of these commodities. Statistics are issued from time to time showing what the Department of Statistics regards as the rate of wages paid in the different provinces for agricultural labour. The most noticeable feature is the fact that there has been a constant decline each year since 1925. Anybody who has examined the figures and relates these figures to the actual circumstances in these provinces and counties knows perfectly well that those statistics give a fallacious notion as to what the real rates of agricultural wages are.

I would like to know from the Minister whether any provision is to be made by his Department in way of insuring that a decent rate of wages will be paid to those engaged in the production of those subsidised agricultural products. Is the intention of his Department to allow people to secure those bounties from the State, for the production of certain cereals, while those producing them are paying to their agricultural labourers extremely low rates of wages? Because it is manifestly unfair that the State, acting in the name of the community, should provide bounties, subsidies and markets and assist with quotas, all those engaged on the employers' side of agricultural industry while at the same time doing nothing whatever to protect the agricultural labourer from exploitation by means of low wages. Many of the agricultural labourers working to-day are getting less in wages than they would get under the Unemployment Assistance Act. Many of these people to-day are compelled to work for rates of wages which are coming perilously near pre-war rate of wages.

Mr. Belton

What about the prices? Are they not below pre-war level?

Mr. Norton

The Deputy can make his own speech.

Mr. Belton

Would the Deputy apply himself to that?

Mr. Norton

I do not want to make the Deputy's speech.

Mr. Belton

No; you are making a very bad hand of your own.

Mr. Norton

There will be so little in the Deputy's speech that I do not want to take anything from it.

Mr. Belton

There is nothing in yours so you cannot make mine.

Mr. Norton

Why then does the Deputy interrupt?

Mr. MacDermot

Toujours la politesse.

Mr. Norton

Many of these agricultural labourers are working for rates of wages which are less than the rates paid under the Unemployment Assistance Act and everybody knows that those are low enough, and, indeed, much too low. Yet, the Department which is providing bounties for wheat, bounties for beet and guaranteed markets and quotas for other root crops, has apparently so far not felt itself bound to do anything in the way of trying to raise the level of wages for those who are the real producers of agricultural produce.

I ask the Minister if he will tell the House in what way he thinks prosperity can be restored to the agricultural industry. It is a mistake to imagine a prosperous agricultural industry when agricultural workers are paid their existing rates of wages. There can be no prosperity in the agricultural industry when such rates of wages obtain and the Minister ought to take some steps to ensure that these rates of wages are not only protected against further reduction but that some effort is made to raise them to a standard comparable with a standard which will provide a decent scale of sustenance for the worker. I think representations have been made to the Minister already to establish an agricultural wages board, and I should like to hear from the Minister what are the proposals of the Government in that respect. I hope that the Minister will give the House some indication that it is at last being realised by the Government that something must be done to stop the continued reduction in the rates of wages of agricultural labourers. If the Minister does that, he will have done a better day's work for agriculture than by the payment of some of these bounties and the imposition of some of these quotas and restrictions.

Mr. Belton

I am glad that, even at this late time of his life, the leader of the Labour Party is beginning to learn.

Mr. Norton

I have not had the experience of as many parties as the Deputy, so I must be excused.

Mr. Belton

The Deputy made so many incursions into the various phases of economic life that he now realises that it is better for him to learn a little about one subject than to try to have a smattering of a number.

Mr. Norton

That is advice I would commend to the Deputy.

Mr. Belton

If the Deputy will listen for a while he will, perhaps, see the force of my argument.

Mr. Norton

Non-political.

Mr. Belton

It is on the Estimates— call it what you like. Deputy Norton has spent a year or so displaying his eloquence in this House, and out of it, upon the growing of wheat and the growing of sugar at a fixed price, at a price which regulated the remuneration right down the line, because you cannot take more out of a pint measure than a pint and you cannot take more return out of a ton of beet than the cash value fixed by the legislative act of this House, for which Deputy Norton voted. The cost of seeds, manures, land annuities, rates, etc., is included in the price of that ton of beet. That ton of beet will produce a certain quota of sugar— from 15 to 18 per cent. The price of that sugar is fixed—I think, by the Government—at a very high figure, but when Deputy Norton is speaking to another audience he says it is monstrous that the retail price of sugar should be 3½d. per lb. and the wholesale price 3d. per lb., but it must be that price in order to keep up the price which Deputy Norton voted for here. That price which he voted for cannot afford to give any more wages than 5d. an hour for a 60-hour week. That is what Deputy Norton and his Party voted for in this House.

Mr. Norton

No such thing.

Mr. Belton

Will Deputy Norton tell us how a ton of beet can be produced, higher wages paid, the beet sold at a wholesale price of 3d. per lb. and the factory given the price for manufacturing it provided by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in the Act? The Deputy voted and tied himself down, step by step, as he went along, and it is not in one strait-jacket the Deputy is but in many strait-jackets all along the line. It does not do to come here and make a propagandist speech for the gallery. Will the Minister, in giving bounties and subsidies, see that a proper wage is paid to agricultural workers, so as to give them a proper standard of sustenance and so on? Will the Deputy come out and get behind a plough with me and show how it can be done? He will not nor will anybody else. I notice that there is no farmer on the opposite benches while this is being discussed. This is an agricultural Estimate and there is not a solitary farmer on the Government or the Labour Benches.

Mr. Moore

Oh, yes, there is.

Mr. Belton

Deputy Moore is. He represents a few deluded farmers in Wicklow, whom I helped him to delude one time.

Dr. Ryan

What farmers does the Deputy represent?

Mr. Belton

He represents himself, a farmer, which the Minister does not.

Dr. Ryan

That is about all the Deputy does represent.

Mr. Belton

That is all the Minister represents or will ever represent.

Dr. Ryan

I represent my constituency, not myself.

Mr. Belton

The Minister represents more of the deluded farmers in Wexford.

Mr. Corish

It is not as easy to delude them in Wexford as it is in Dublin.

Mr. Dillon

I think it well to call into the House some of the Fianna Fáil farmers and I draw your attention, Sir, to the fact that there is not a quorum.

Mr. T. Kelly

You are very cruel on your own.

(Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted, and 20 Deputies being present.)

Mr. Belton

I do not want to pursue that argument any further, but the Minister, in introducing this Estimate, referred to the export of eggs to Germany. I should like him to elaborate that a little further in his concluding remarks. He said that this item was introduced as a token to give authority for the export of eggs to Germany. I wonder is this part of the £1 to £3 agreement?

I understand we are buying £3 worth of goods from Germany for the £1 worth that they buy from us. I wonder if we are to buy from Germany what is the usual exchange? Are we dealing on a gold basis? Have we a gold basis with them? Of course, we will have to do it by bills of exchange. Are there sufficient of these bills of exchange about to help us to carry on the trade? There will be more room for that in another place. Now there is an item of £40 to help to settle people on the land in Meath. The leader of the Labour Party has just criticised the Ministry for, if not recognising, at all events, winking at a wage of 5d. an hour. As a matter of fact, I know that wages in Meath are not 25/- a week, yet here we are asked to vote £40 to help land settlement in that county. There are people resident in Meath who cost this State nothing. I would ask Deputy O'Reilly to contradict this statement if he can— that agricultural wages in Meath do not exceed 25/- a week. Yet here we are asked to give money to help to carry out land settlement in Meath where wage conditions are so bad. There is so much money asked for the administration of this Cattle and Sheep Act. Deputy Norton wanted to know from the Minister if the farmers are getting the price fixed under this Act. The Minister knows well that the farmers are not getting the price fixed. He knows perfectly well that this Act has been harmful to the farmers. The Minister knows the fatal statement he made—a statement that cattlemen who knew what they were talking about begged him not to make. These men who could then sell their cattle at 19/- or 20/- a cwt. begged the Minister not to make the statement which they knew he was to make and which he did make. The result of that statement by the Minister was that cattle went down 50/- per head. I would ask the Minister to contradict that.

Dr. Ryan

I do not remember the statement.

Mr. Belton

Will the Minister contradict this?

Dr. Ryan

I probably will. What is it?

Mr. Belton

If it suits the Minister he surely will contradict it. I want to ask the Minister this—has not frozen meat been unloaded to a large extent on the British market?

Dr. Ryan

That is a fact.

Mr. Belton

And that unloading has taken place as a direct consequence of the statement made by the Minister, the statement which men in the cattle trade begged him not to make. The Minister will not forget that either.

Dr. Ryan

It is the first I heard of it.

Mr. Belton

It might be the first the Minister has heard of it in that way, but the Minister knows well it hits home.

Dr. Ryan

What is the statement?

Mr. Belton

The Minister has too much power in his hands already through his officials and I am not going to give him an opportunity of using that power.

Dr. Ryan

Do not be afraid of me.

Mr. Belton

Personally I am not but I do not want to expose somebody else and if I gave a little more information to the Minister he would probably be able to identify his man. The Minister has acknowledged that since the passing of this Act more frozen meat has been unloaded on the British market.

Dr. Ryan

I did not say more frozen meat.

Mr. Belton

Very well, we will wait for the record. The price has gone down for our meat. This Act which was passed to stabilise and raise the price of meat does not seem to have served the purpose intended. We are asked now to vote money to finance this Act which has not served its purpose. The Minister has now admitted that the price of meat went down since the passing of this Act. Previous to the passage of this Act, a certain price was obtained for meat on the export market through the ordinary laws of trading. Now the Minister comes along and asks for money. I hold no brief for the traders as such but I know the prices that were paid here and the prices charged by the traders. The traders were prepared to show their accounts and to show the profits they were making. They were trading under ordinary trade conditions, buying as cheaply as they could and selling as advantageously as they could. They were buying at 17/- to 18/- a cwt. And the Minister came along and said to them "you must buy at 25/- a cwt." The Minister admits that the selling price on the other side went down. How could trade be carried on under those conditions? To finance this Act he now wants some money and I suppose he must get it. I am not raising those points by way of throwing unnecessary obstacles in the Minister's way. The Minister has admitted the fall in price. That is the substantial point I make.

I do not know that I could agree with the criticism of tobacco growers. I do not agree with charging no duty on home grown tobacco. If that were the case there would be a rush to grow tobacco now but there would be a terrible loss to the Revenue. This grant of £850 is, I take it, for the carriage of beet from Cooley to the Carlow factory. Is not that where the Cooley beet is manufactured—Carlow? What is the subsidy per ton—is it 2/-?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. Belton

Then the fixed price for beet is the same for Cooley, I take it, as for the other districts. There was a matter raised by Deputy Dillon when this Estimate was being discussed the last day and, if I am permitted, I would like to go as far into it as Deputy Dillon went. I do not want to question the size of the wage fixed in the beet settlement; I do not want to criticise either side. We are called upon, not only to subsidise the growing of beet but the production of dear sugar generally, because sugar is now costing the consumer at least twice as much as it might cost if we imported sugar and did not bother about manufacturing it. This is the only opportunity the Minister has had since that agreement was made and I think it would be very useful if he gave his views on the principle involved in that settlement—namely, a flat price for beet.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister would not be in order in giving his views on that matter now.

Mr. Belton

In order to help the price of beet to the Cooley growers we are asked to pay a subsidy of 2/-. I do not want to raise the matter in the spirit of the ordinary debate here. I raise it merely to hear the Ministerial view on that principle, because that principle adopted there, in my opinion, takes away a great incentive which would make sugar production from beet an economic proposition, which it is not at the present time in any country in the world. That incentive, to be paid according to sugar content, is eliminated now because of the flat rate. I am sure the Minister and every farmer here appreciate this, that we would want about 5 per cent. more of a sugar content in our beet strain to make it an economic proposition and provide sugar for the masses at a reasonable price.

An Ceann Comhairle

All that was relevant to sugar beet, but not to this Estimate.

Mr. Belton

I do not want to raise this as a contentious matter; I am merely anxious to get the Minister's views. I would very much deplore it if the Ministerial view is to continue paying a flat rate and also to leave the secret of the strain of the seed that is growing beet in this country in the hands of foreigners.

An Ceann Comhairle

These foreigners are, presumably, not resident in Cooley.

Mr. Belton

But we are giving 2/- a ton to these Cooley growers—I do not mean Indian coolies—to help them to grow beet. Those Cooley growers do not know what is the strain of seed they are growing.

An Ceann Comhairle

And the Deputy may not inform them on this Vote.

Mr. Belton

But if it were a better strain we would save our 2/-.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy must get away from the general question of beet growing.

Mr. Belton

All right, I am satisfied. I would like the Minister to inform the House when he proposes to pay the bounties on wheat. There was a case recently where a man's cattle were seized for annuities, sold by public auction, and the Minister owed him more against his claim for wheat bounties than the man owed the Land Commission for annuities. Many people have asked me to raise a question here and to find out when the Minister expects to be in a position to pay the wheat bounties. I hope the Minister will give some indication as to how the matter stands.

Mr. McGovern

I want to say a few words in regard to this Estimate. I notice there is a considerable sum of money transferred and it is set out here as "anticipated savings on original provision under this subhead in respect of salaries, wages and allowances; factory expenses and compensation for animals slaughtered." The whole amount comes to £102,045. It has been transferred and there is credit taken in this Vote for that amount. It was intended, I understood, to set up a tinned meat factory. I know that many poor farmers had old cows and they keep them for the purposes of this factory in the hope of getting a few pounds on them. The people were led to believe that the factory would be working before February. That factory has not been established and the result is that whatever little stock of fodder the farmers had has all been consumed and they still have the old cows and the animals are not worth as much now as they were then. This is a very serious ground of complaint. In some parts of the country, at any rate, farmers have suffered considerably; they have been misled by the promise that the factory would be in operation in February.

Speaking generally on the Vote, I do not think there is much to be gained by discussing it at length. I appreciate the difficulties that the Minister is up against. He is doing the best he can to stave off the evil day that is approaching all too fast and which must inevitably overtake agriculture. The Executive Council succeeded in one night in turning off the source of power to that industry by diverting the water from the mill and they gave the Minister for Agriculture the difficult job of trying to keep the old mill running. I certainly sympathise with the Minister because he is trying to carry on a task that is absolutely impossible. Any medical man will tell you that the best way to treat a disease is to remove the cause. Instead of doing that the Minister is treating the symptoms. My advice to him would be to remove the cause. But for the fact that I am afraid to mention the economic war in this debate, I would say that the economic war was the cause of the whole trouble and that only by removing the cause is there any hope of saving agriculture. Agriculture, if we compare it to a mill, is just kept running, not by the little relief by way of bounties and Votes that have been passed on to it, but because of force acquired before the source of power was cut off. The little that is being given to it now is just helping it to carry on for a little longer, but it is only for a little longer. I can only compare the Minister to a man who, when the water is turned off from a mill, would start to draw water with a bucket to try and keep it going a little longer. This is something similar to that; but sooner or later the industry must come to a standstill. While there is time to do something to remove the cause, I would appeal to the Minister, because after all he is the Minister responsible for agriculture, to do whatever he can to remove the cause of the whole trouble.

Mr. Finlay

As a farmer and a representative of farmers I cannot allow this Vote to pass without making a few remarks. I am sorry to say that the Slaughter of Cattle and Sheep Act has been of no use or assistance to the farmer. Farmers at present are getting less money instead of more for their beef cattle.

I am a stall feeder myself and sent a wagon of cattle to the Dublin market last week. Under the Act we are supposed to get 25/- a cwt. for our cattle. I have not seen 25/- paid for any cattle so far, and I would wish to see it, both for my own sake and for the sake of the agricultural community. I had great difficulty in obtaining 20/- per cwt. in the Dublin cattle market last Thursday for my wagon of beef cattle. I had to pay, roughly, 4/6 per cwt. for the transport of the cattle from Leix to Dublin, so that I really only got 15/6 per cwt. for my cattle. I have to say with regret that since the Act came into operation the sale of cattle has been a losing proposition for the farmer instead of a gain. We all hoped that the cattle trade was going to be revived. We do not want to become millionaires but we want to get what would pay decent wages to our labourers and a decent price for the fodder necessary to maintain the cattle.

There have been 120 supervisors appointed under the Act at a salary of something like £6 a week. I should like to know for what purpose they are going round the country. Surely they are not doing the cattle trade any good. At a recent fair in Leix a man was selling a beast which was not being bought for beef, but for a different purpose altogether. One of these inspectors came along and said that 22/- per cwt. would have to be paid for the beast. "Then." said the buyer. "I am finished. I was not buying the beast for beef but for another purpose." The man who owned the beast had to take it home again and it has to remain there until the next fair, when probably the same inspector will come along and operate in the same way. I think that if these inspectors looked after the prices paid in the Dublin cattle market they would be doing a good day's work.

With regard to sugar beet, I grow a certain amount, some six or eight acres, and I can tell you that the price is not very good. I thought that we might succeed this year in getting a better price, but a flat rate of 37/6 is very poor. The House can understand, however, that a lot of people at present are eager to grow beet because they get the seed and the manure and a little money in the summer. That is very useful to people who are not in a position to buy seeds or manures or to stock their lands. In these circumstances, I do not blame the small farmers for rushing to the factories to enter into contracts. To me it is a sign of poverty when I see people undertaking to grow beet at a flat rate of 37/6. In my own area when 54/- per ton was being paid for beet, I knew farmers who refused to sign contracts at that price.

Deputy Norton speaks here of a wage of 5d. an hour for labour. That, I admit, is not a good wage for beet pulling. The pulling of beet is carried on usually in the month of January when a man can only work five or six hours a day. He would probably work on the average less than four days a week. No farmer would ask a labouring man to go out and pull beet for 5d. an hour under these conditions. The man would not earn salt for his potatoes at 5d. an hour.

Mr. Davin

What would be a fair rate?

Mr. Finlay

I shall answer that question later on. With regard to the beet crop generally, I am sorry, having regard to the deplorable position in which the farmer is now placed, that he would not be paid a proper price for the raw material of that industry, if we can call it an industry. I was always a supporter of the beet factories and last year, in the area of the Thurles factory in which I live, I did everything I possibly could to get the requisite acreage for that factory, but I think that the beet growers are deserving of a more reasonable remuneration for their efforts than they are now allowed.

Another matter to which I should like to call attention has reference to the wheat bounty. I asked the Minister a short time ago a question in reference to this bounty and he answered me fairly and justly. He told me that the Department would speed up the payment of the bounty and that the wheat growers would be paid by the 1st March. I have to compliment him on the performance of that promise. Many wheat growers in my county have been paid the bounty recently though there are some who have yet to receive it. I compliment the Minister on speeding up the payment of that bounty.

I should also like to call his attention to the position of the tobacco crop. The crop for last year has been handed over by the farmers to the rehandlers but at the present time the farmer has got practically no return for his crop. He is advanced only 10 per cent on his tobacco by the rehandlers. I should like to know how the farmer is to put down his seeds and prepare his stocks for the coming year when he has not been paid or does not know what he is to receive for last year's crop? The tobacco crop is just like any other crop in that the earlier it is planted the better the crop will be. A crop must be placed between 1st April and 1st May to give the best results. How is a grower to prepare for the 1935 crop when he does not know yet what the 1934 crop will bring him? It is not just to the farmer to expect him to sow this crop when he does not know what he is going to receive for last year's crop. I would ask the Minister to say when, where, or how, or by whom growers are to be paid for last year's crop. Deputy Davin smiles but the Deputy never did much tobacco growing.

Mr. Davin

You did not answer the question.

Mr. Finlay

What question?

Mr. Davin

What rate you would pay the man pulling beet.

Mr. Finlay

I can tell the Deputy that later. I would ask the Minister to state whether it is the rehandler or the Government is to pay the farmer for his tobacco crop. Many farmers do not know where the money is to come from. There are many farmers who grew excellent crops in the past year but they are in doubt, having regard to the fact that they have not yet been paid in full for last year's crop, whether they will sow any this year. It would be some enlightenment to them if they were informed when they are to receive payment for that crop. I shall conclude by asking the Minister to give us some information in his reply as to how the tobacco crop for 1934 stands in regard to the price and payment for the crop.

Dr. Ryan

There have been various matters raised on the Estimate but I do not think it will take very long to deal with some of these matters. I was asked, in the beginning of the discussion, a question as to the nature of the instruction to be given in connection with the special settlement scheme in Meath. An assistant agricultural overseer, one of the officials who is accustomed to deal with small farmers in the congested districts, is being put there to instruct the farmers who are being migrated in the growing of certain crops. He will instruct them in the growing of all ordinary crops that the land may require.

Mr. MacDermot

In what language will he instruct them?

Dr. Ryan

In Irish, preferably. I think they are all Irish speakers as a matter of fact.

Mr. MacDermot

The instructors are also Irish speakers.

Dr. Ryan

Yes, the majority of the instructors are Irish speakers.

Mr. Belton

Had these migrants any experience of growing crops before they were migrated?

Dr. Ryan

Yes, they had in the congested districts.

Mr. Belton

Then what instruction do they need? Is it not the same way you grow crops everywhere?

Dr. Ryan

Not at all.

Mr. Belton

What instruction do they want?

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy displays such ignorance that I think we should send one to him.

Mr. Belton

I have forgotten more than you will ever know.

Dr. Ryan

You have forgotten it, anyway. A question was raised with regard to the money expended on publicity. I want to say that there are many newspapers in this country which are very strongly opposed to the Government and who criticise Government policy on every issue that comes up, but we have not withdrawn the wheat advertisements from them. We did withdraw the advertisements from two papers because in their criticism of our scheme they published certain figures which we asked them to correct and which they refused to correct. It was on that account that the advertisements had to be withdrawn. In fact, we do not object to the Opposition newspapers criticising the wheat scheme in a fair way in their leading articles, but we did object when they used figures which were not correct and when they refused to make the corrections when asked to do so by us.

Mr. Belton

Did they reply to your representations?

Dr. Ryan

They did not reply except by way of repeating the incorrect figures.

Mr. MacDermot

Who is to be judge as to whether the figures were fairly or unfairly presented?

Dr. Ryan

I am afraid I have to be the judge, but I do not mind giving the whole particulars to any Deputy to see whether I was unfair or not. Deputy Dillon asked me a question about the price of butter in Germany. I have not got the figures with me, but I did answer the Deputy before when asked this question and I did prove in the reply given to him that we were getting a better price for our butter in Germany than we would get in Britain— in fact, that we were getting a better price than if there was no tariff charged on our butter in Britain. I do not want to make the case that the price is better because we have to pay a tariff on our butter going into Britain but that we are getting a better price without taking the tariff into consideration.

Mr. Belton

Is it because Germany is on the gold standard that we are getting a better price?

Dr. Ryan

I am not going into these questions of high finance, but we are getting a better price. Is Germany on the gold standard, as a matter of fact?

Mr. Belton

Yes.

Dr. Ryan

Then I am learning something from the Deputy.

Mr. Belton

That is why you cannot buy coal from them.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Dillon asked why, if we were making a profit, it was not shown in the appropriations-in-aid. We do not show a profit because the way in which our butter exports are carried on under the subsidy scheme is that there is a different subsidy given for exports to many countries. There are certain ordinary traders who have a small trade in butter with Egypt, for instance, and there is a different export bounty for butter going there than for butter going to Britain. There is even a different bounty for butter going to the Isle of Man than for butter going to Britain. All these subsidies are regulated so as to try to get the exporter the best possible price and at the same time give him as good a return as if he were exporting to Britain. The Government subsidy was less on butter exported to Germany than on butter exported to Britain.

Mr. Belton

Could the Minister say what is the difference?

Dr. Ryan

I could not say off-hand, but I think the difference was about 15/-. However, if I am asked it in the form of a Parliamentary question I can give the Deputy the information.

Mr. Belton

If a question is put down?

Dr. Ryan

Yes. I do not remember the figures exactly at the moment. Deputy Dillon also asked why, instead of spending the money on advertising wheat, we do not spend some of this money on winter dairying. There is, as Deputies are probably aware, a very big increase in winter production of butter in the last two or three years. We have become very much nearer to being self-supporting in our production of butter this winter than we were three years ago. The reason is that we are giving very big encouragement to it under the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Act. Under that Act a certain levy is payable by creameries on their production. That levy is only collectible for eight months of the year. There is no levy from the 1st December to the 1st April, so that, during the four winter months, the effect of that is that creameries get about 40/- per cwt. more for their butter than they get in the other months. That has had the effect of stimulating production. I am sure that farming Deputies quite realise that a matter like that is bound to be slow, because it is not so very easy for a farmer to change his cows into autumn calving cows instead of spring calving cows. Deputies will realise that it takes a few years to bring about that change, and it is quite possible that the movement in that direction may be felt more in the next few years.

Mr. Belton

Could the Minister say if the fluctuations in the price of butter are similar in the British market?

Dr. Ryan

No, not so much as that at all. The present price—at least, the price about two days ago when I saw it last—would be about 80/-, and the average price for the summer months last year was 72/-. We take the summer months, as far as butter goes, as the eight months of the year from 1st April to 1st December, and we take the four winter months as from 1st December to the 1st April inclusive.

Mr. Belton

Has not the production in New Zealand, Australian and Argentinian butter cut out the winter dairying?

Dr. Ryan

During our winter their exports are higher. With regard to the question of the German Agreement, the matter was raised by certain Deputies here that it was unfair to export the eggs through the Newmarket Dairy Company because that company, being owned by the Government, would get whatever advantage there might be, if there were any advantage, of a possibly higher price in Germany than in Britain. I do not think that such would be the case. For instance, if we, in the Department, feel that a merchant could realise, say, 3d. per great hundred more in Germany than in Great Britain, taking tariffs and so on into consideration, then we would fix the bounty on eggs going to Germany at 3d. less than on those going to Great Britain. The effect of that would be that there would be no more benefit to the merchant trading with Germany than to the merchant trading with Great Britain. That, of course, was taken by some Deputies here, on the last night that we were discussing this matter, as depriving the producers of the benefits of the German market. It is not so, however, because the position we are in really—the position that I am in as Minister for Agriculture—is that I get a certain amount of money for export bounties, and although I am, in law and by regulation, subject to the Minister for Finance in the spending of that money—subject to his sanction and so on—still, if I can make a saving of, say, a small amount in the bounty on eggs going to Germany, that small amount of saving will be put to the benefit of eggs in general. In that way, all producers will get whatever benefit there is.

On the other hand, if we were to give the same bounty and, instead of saving the 3d. said to the merchant that it should be passed on to the producers, what would probably happen in the first place is that the merchants would not pass it on, and if they did pass it on, it would be passed on only to a certain selected few producers and not to the whole lot. Deputies will realise that that would be very unfair. Surely it would be much fairer, if we can get a better price out of the German or the Spanish market, to make the saving and to spread it over the whole lot, if the saving is large enough to do so.

I was asked if there was a quota on eggs going into Great Britain. There is. I was asked why there were no regulations issued. Now, we think, or at least we hope, that with the amount of eggs going to Germany and France —which will amount roughly to about 500,000 great hundreds—with that amount taken from the general export market, we may not have too much of a surplus for the British market over the amount allotted to us. With that in view, we are anxious to avoid bringing in regulations as far as we can. We believe that if we bring them in they will have the effect inevitably of lowering the price, because the suppliers will get the idea that there is a restriction on export and that they will not be able to sell their eggs unless they sell them quickly. The exporters are likely to take advantage of that feeling and press the suppliers to sell, with the inevitable result that prices would go down. So, for the present, at any rate, we are exporting our eggs without regulation. If, however, we exceed the quota allotted to us for the first three or the first six months, we may have to issue regulations then in order to make the numbers right. I hope, however, that may not be necessary.

Mr. Belton

Could the Minister say what is the quota?

Dr. Ryan

I do not remember exactly, at the moment, the number of great hundreds to Great Britain, but I should say that unless we export a considerably greater quantity than in 1934 we will not have any difficulties this year—that is, taking all exports into account. Deputy Dillon also raised the point that we were only allowed to send the best eggs to Germany, and he concluded from that, therefore, that we would only have the leavings for Great Britain. Really, that is a very irresponsible statement to make. It is quite true that we are only allowed to send the best eggs to Germany, but for the last eight or nine years—I think since 1924—this country has not sent anything but the best eggs to Great Britain. Under our own Export of Eggs Act we have examination of all consignments at the ports, and if there are any bad, stale, or broken eggs, or any under-weight eggs, they are taken out of those cases, and very often the whole case is confiscated if there are more than five or six eggs that would not pass the inspectors.

I am continually getting complaints from inspectors that in the last three or four years we have been far too strict about eggs going to Great Britain. I am sure that while very great care has been taken to see that none but eggs of the very best class are sent to Great Britain that Deputy Dillon knows that. I think it was a very irresponsible statement for him to make or to allow to go out that we were going to palm off inferior eggs on Great Britain because we were sending the best eggs to Germany. It is not true. We are not sending inferior eggs to any country and we do not intend to do so. In fact, I think we may be more strict with regard to good eggs going to Great Britain, with regard to size, and that we definitely have our eggs classified and graded on a higher standard than in the past. I understand that the Ceann Comhairle does not agree that we should discuss the beet question now, but I want to say that I agree with the flat price because, in the first place, the technical advisers in the factory stated that the flat price was all right and had no dangers, while the farmers supplying three of the factories voted practically unanimously in favour of the flat price. When you have the technical advisers and the farmers advocating the flat price I do not see that any Minister for Agriculture should interfere.

Mr. Belton

Is any research work being done?

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Belton raised a question about seeds. As a matter of fact we did some experimental work in the growing of beet seed here. We have no results yet from seeds that have been planted. We have produced seeds of different varieties and we can have them tested to see how they get on. We are likely to go more into the question of the production of seeds here. We can hope that within a reasonable time—three or four years —we will be able to tackle the question of growing our own seeds. Deputy Belton is in touch with the County Dublin farmers who for many years have been seed growers for cabbages, brussels sprouts, etc., and I am sure he realises that there is a big difficulty in the growing of the seeds of certain root crops here, because our climate is not altogether dry enough. We may be able to get over that by experiments. The Deputy will agree that we have in the Albert College technical officials who have made a success of the growing of certain other seeds, and that we may hope that they will succeed in this matter.

Mr. Belton

I agree. Can the Minister say if the strain from which he is raising seed has proved itself to be the best strain, or has it proved to be the best in bulk and sugar content?

Dr. Ryan

We tried various varieties. I think experiments are at present going on on how to produce seed, and if we can get over that problem, we can settle down to the position of being able to produce the best seed here.

Mr. Belton

The experiments are not more ambitious than the raising of seed?

Dr. Ryan

For the present.

Mr. Belton

The Department has not gone on the lines of producing a new strain?

Dr. Ryan

No. We are trying however to produce the best seed here.

Mr. Belton

Is the Department dealing with the strain that has proved itself most prolific?

Dr. Ryan

We are dealing with varieties grown here. Some Deputy drew attention to the fact that in our costings we gave 24/- as an agricultural wage. It is quite true that we did so. But I do not think we can be accused of giving any approval to that wage. We were called in as a third party, to advise on the costings of beet growing. Suppose the Department had not been called in, but that an auditor or a costings officer was called in to estimate, is it not quite natural that he would take the all round rates of present labour charges? Nobody would accuse the costings officer of approving of that wage. Such an officer would not attempt to criticise the wages or salaries paid. In estimating the costings he would go on the wages paid. I have no hesitation in saying that the wages of agricultural labourers are far too low. It does not do any good to say we all believe that. Farmers are paying certain wages and it is on these wages the costings were made.

Mr. Belton

The costings of the manufacture of sugar from beet were not estimated in the same way, because a definite wage was laid down for labour by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in the manufacture of sugar. Why does not the Minister for Agriculture lay down a living wage for working farmers and agricultural labourers who produce beet?

Dr. Ryan

That is a different matter. It is very easy for a beet factory to allow a certain wage for men working on the production of sugar. A farmer is not a beet producer and nothing else.

Mr. Belton

He is a farmer.

Dr. Ryan

Yes. Are we to have officials going around to farmers saying: "your man worked from 1.30 to 3.30 at beet, and then went off to something else." That cannot be done unless we raise the general rate of wages all round.

Mr. Belton

Why should wages be guaranteed to labourers working in the factories which are twice as high as the wages paid to men who produce the raw material? Under the Pigs and Bacon Act that is provided for.

Dr. Ryan

It is all to the good.

Mr. Belton

Yes. But it is not fair to do it for one class and not for the other.

Dr. Ryan

Another Deputy also raised a question about wages. Deputy Norton says that in all the subsidised crops—wheat, beet and tobacco—for which there are guaranteed prices, we should fix the wages for labour. I am not a great student of labour questions, but I imagine that it is a bad labour principle to advocate that men should be paid a fixed wage for work of one character and not to bother what is paid for work of another character. We have to deal with the general agricultural rate. If the Dáil so decides we would then have to have a fixed wage for agricultural wages all round. That is a question that must be dealt with at some other time. I was asked by Deputy Dillon whether we intended to transfer the cost of the wheat scheme to the consumers. From circulars that were before the flour millers, and which were published in the Press about the 1st week in January, it was quite obvious that that was the intention of the Government. A Bill will be introduced before Easter—it may not be discussed until after Easter—which will have that as one of its main objects. The millers will pay the average price for what they receive from the farmers, and will pass on whatever is the increased price to the purchaser of flour.

Mr. Belton

There will be no subsidy?

Dr. Ryan

No.

Mr. Belton

Will the flour or the grist contain a certain percentage of wheat grown here?

Dr. Ryan

The percentage will remain.

Mr. Belton

What is the proposal?

Dr. Ryan

The percentage will remain for this year. We grew about 90,000 acres and the percentage was fixed at 10. It is possible that will have to be increased, because the 10 per cent. is almost filled by the millers. It may have to be increased another quarter or 10 per cent.

Mr. Belton

That will absorb the whole crop?

Dr. Ryan

Scarcely. I was asked if I could suggest a good rotation in the case of a farmer who sows wheat this year as to what he would sow next year or the year after. Certain Deputies appear to believe that we cannot increase our land under wheat unless we increase our land under root crops. The question is then asked: what will we do with the root crops? Deputy Dillon talks so much and knows so little that he makes a lot of mistakes. We find that in 1934 we had 665,000 acres under root crops. In many counties in Ireland and in England they have a four years' rotation, leaving out hay. They have two cereals, one root crop and then a cereal with grass seed. When I was young and innocent I saw in the County Wexford a five year rotation—three years cereals, one root crop and one year's cereal with grass seed. Of course, there was artificial manure used on the second year's cereals. If we had three years cereals and one root crop we could have about 2,700,000 acres under tillage instead of the 1,500,000 acres that we have at present. That would give us an increase of 1,200,000 acres. If we had that rotation, it would be sufficient to provide us with all the wheat and barley that we need: the wheat to supply us with all the bread we require and the barley to substitute all the maize that is being imported at present. Our tillage requirements could be filled by having a four year rotation. We need not increase our root crops at all. We are going to increase our root crops this year for more beet but only to a small amount. Our area under potatoes is almost as low as it can go. Our exports are very low. They only amount to about 15,000 or 16,000 tons in the year. That figure is not likely to go lower. Mangolds actually increased last year in spite of all the talk about the bad conditions as regards cattle. Turnips went down by about 10,000 acres. Taking root crops, apart from looking forward to any great increase in connection with the production of industrial alcohol, we could, without increasing the area under them, grow all the cereals we require and have no problem to deal with as far as that goes.

Mr. Belton

Am I to understand from the Minister that in saying that he is making provision for 800,000 acres of wheat?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. Belton

I would like to see that worked out.

Dr. Ryan

And another 600,000 acres for barley.

Mr. Belton

And, with all that, the Minister would not increase the area under root crops?

Dr. Ryan

It would not be necessary.

Mr. Belton

It is like robbing a bank. You would be robbing the land of its fertility.

Dr. Ryan

I say that a three-years' cereal crop and one root crop has been adopted by many counties.

Mr. Belton

But with that rotation how long would the land last? Start from lea.

Dr. Ryan

In the first year have wheat.

Mr. Belton

Wheat from lea?

Dr. Ryan

Yes. The second year wheat or, alternatively, oats or barley. The third year root crop, and the fourth year wheat or other cereal.

Mr. Belton

Can the Minister tell us of any land that has been used in that way for any length of time?

Mr. Smith

It has been done in the case of some of the poorest land in the country.

Mr. Belton

I would like to see some examples.

Dr. Ryan

If the Deputy will visit my farm some time I will show him.

Mr. Belton

I will be delighted. I accept that invitation.

Dr. Ryan

Very good.

Mr. Belton

Will Deputy Kelly come with me?

Mr. T. Kelly

Yes, we will all go.

Dr. Ryan

In that event I will require to get notice of the visit. When this sheet was published some time ago it was pointed out very promptly by certain Opposition newspapers, and afterwards, I think, by certain Opposition Deputies, that our area under tillage was actually going down. Of course, that was a very misleading statement to make. When you take hay with tillage it has gone down. When I sat on the Opposition Benches I remember saying—I repeat the statement now, when I cannot be accused of making the point in support of Government policy—that the worst sign of a farmer was to see him increasing his hay. When you see a farmer do that you may conclude that he is on his last legs, because an increase in his hay crop shows that he cannot afford to till and that he cannot afford to graze his land. The worst sign one could see in the country was an increase in the hay acreage. In the last few years the position has been that the acreage under hay has gone down, while the acreage under tillage has gone up. It was because people were reading tillage plus hay together that the total had gone down. The actual position is that the acreage under tillage has gone up, while that under hay has gone down.

Mr. Belton

The returns do not prove that.

Dr. Ryan

If Deputy Belton will examine the figures he will see that there were only 278,000 acres of first crop hay. We had 665,000 acres of root crop, and a little under half that acreage represents first crop hay. Therefore, people are not going out of tillage and going back into hay. I think there is no doubt but that there is ample room for a big increase in cereal growing without any change in root crops.

Mr. Belton

You have a decline of 20,000 acres under first crop hay.

Dr. Ryan

If land was not going under first crop hay, people tilled it again and it went back to another root crop. It is not necessary for a farmer to sow root crop. It is if he is up against the problem of growing as much cereals as possible.

Mr. Belton

The people are doing that because they know the present conditions will not continue.

Dr. Ryan

Why not?

Mr. Belton

The people will find you out.

Dr. Ryan

Every time the people get the opportunity they give us a bigger vote. The Deputy knows that well. He left the sinking ship after the last election. Deputy Dillon went on to speak of the free beef scheme and said he heard of one household that was drawing 21 lbs. of beef in the week. There are abuses under that scheme as there are likely to be under any scheme of the kind. I do not think they are many or that they are very grave. I think it will be necessary, in the near future, to have certain amendments made in that scheme. In fact they are being considered. If any are made one would be to meet abuses of that kind—the maximum amount of beef going into one house. The point was also made that while we were paying out £45,000 for cattle we were only receiving £22,000 for those sold to Germany. In fact, the official organ of the Opposition had a special article dealing with the bounties, in which they tried to make out that we were going to lose heavily on this German trade. That is not so. It has to be remembered that we close our accounts on the 31st of March. At that date we will have spent £45,000 on cattle for Germany, but it has to be remembered that there will be three weeks' payments due from Germany at that date. These will come into the next financial year's account, so that there will not be any loss at all on the cattle going to Germany. I was also attacked because there is no need for us to pay the bounty on the cattle going to Germany. I was asked why we did not pay it and give the benefit to the producer. My answer is that that would not be the fairest way of doing it. What would likely happen is this: that if we were to do that we would be giving to the producers of the cattle going to Germany very much more than anybody would be getting for cattle going to Great Britain or for cattle killed at home. The fairest thing to do is to save the bounty off the cattle going to Germany. That saving will enable us to raise the bounty all around on cattle later on.

Deputy Curran said that in one case we sold cattle at 11/- a cwt., having paid 22/- a cwt. That is a case which I mentioned in introducing the Estimate. We sold cattle to the Waterford Co-operative Meat Factory for experimental purposes in canning. We were anxious to ascertain if the Kerry cattle from the Kerry cattle area would be suitable for this purpose, because they were a type that were very hard to sell otherwise and were commanding only a very poor price. We had an idea that they would be suitable cattle for canning because they are matured cattle and not fat. They would be classed as stores and not forward stores at that. We had them tested and found that they were admirably suited to this purpose. We bought them at store-cattle value. We did pay something more than people had been getting for them up to that stage but we only bought for the purpose of this experiment. That experiment was satisfactory and should enable us, in the canning of meat in the future, to give some sort of preference to Kerry cattle from the Kerry cattle area. That would be extended to mountain cattle from other areas, according to the capacity of the factory.

Mr. Belton

Would it not be an economic proposition to exterminate the Kerry cattle if present conditions are to continue?

Dr. Ryan

Possibly it would but these people cannot produce anything on that land except store cattle or milk.

Mr. Belton

The £6 per head tariff has killed them.

Dr. Ryan

That is why we are trying to tackle the matter in another way. Deputy Norton asked if I thought the Cattle Act was being effectively administered and the minimum price being paid. I am quite sure that the minimum price is not being paid in many cases. Daily, the section of my Department which is administering this Act gets letters saying the minimum price is not being paid. Our difficulty up to the present has been that, when the necessary request is made to the seller of the cattle to sign an affidavit that he received less than the minimum price, he declines to comply. We have never been able to get a seller to do that up to the present, and we have, therefore, been unable to take action against any butcher.

Mr. Belton

The Minister will recall that we pointed that out to him during the debates on the Bill.

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy was so often wrong that I did not believe him in that case.

Mr. Belton

Look up the records.

Dr. Ryan

I accept what the Deputy says, but he was wrong so often that I did not accept what he said on that occasion.

Mr. Belton

I notice that the Minister's attitude towards me has changed of late.

Dr. Ryan

Since the Deputy came closer to this side of the House. I want to inform Deputy Belton that the Beet Act did not fix the price of beet at 30/- or any other figure. Neither did the Government fix the price of sugar. The price of beet is a matter for the company. The price of sugar is a matter for the retailer. He gets the sugar at a certain price from the company and I suppose competition fixes the price at which he sells.

Mr. Belton

The Minister knows that there is no other sugar to be got.

Dr. Ryan

The financial implications of the German agreement would be too big a question to discuss on this Supplementary Estimate but I can assure Deputy Belton that provision has been made for placing at the disposal of exporters from this country the necessary bills of exchange, so that there will not be any hold-up of payment. Deputy Belton says that the price of cattle went down since the Act was passed. That is quite true but Deputy Belton ought to admit that at this time last year we were getting 25/- to 27/- a cwt. for cattle exported.

Mr. Haslett

That is not right.

Dr. Ryan

We were getting at first 23/- for cattle that were being exported and the price did reach 27/- later—about April.

Mr. Finlay

The price was about £1 a cwt. prior to the licences being issued.

Dr. Ryan

It was 23/- or 25/- when the licences were issued. At the same time, the people who sold to the home butcher were only getting 15/- or 16/-. That was why the Act was brought in —to compel the butcher to pay as much as the exporter. I claim that we have achieved that. The home butcher, although he is not paying our minimum price in some cases, is paying as much as the exporter is paying, on the whole. The price of cattle in England has gone down very considerably. Unfortunately, we cannot help that.

Mr. Belton

That renders it impossible to give 25/- for cattle for export when that 25/- was based on a price that obtained at a dearer time.

Dr. Ryan

That is an argument in favour of reducing the minimum price.

Mr. Belton

I am not in a position to say that that would be a wise thing to do but I believe it is the opinion of those who are an fait with the position.

Dr. Ryan

There is something in what the Deputy says and we might have considered that sooner but that we had hoped the bad position was not going to last—that the fall in Great Britain was only temporary. As Deputy Belton has been informed, the wheat bounties are being paid at present and we hope to have them all out before the end of this month. Deputy McGovern raised a point about old cows being kept over by farmers. I am sorry if I gave any impression that the factory dealing with old cows would be started by now. I may have had some hope that it would but I was rather careful not to give the impression to the public that it would be started at any particular time because I was afraid that what Deputy McGovern has mentioned would happen. The factory is being constructed now and I hope it will be in operation within three months.

Mr. Finlay

Is that the factory at Roscrea?

Dr. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. Finlay

And it will be in operation within three months?

Dr. Ryan

Some time during the month of May. Deputy McGovern gives me credit for having staved off the evil day which is bound to come for agriculture.

Somebody must have staved it off because, since July, 1932, not a Deputy has ever spoken from the opposite side of the House on an agricultural Estimate or an agricultural subject but has prophesied that evil day. It has been staved off so far.

Mr. Belton

The cumulative effect of it is on top of you now.

Dr. Ryan

Deputy Belton should give me credit for being one of the best men who ever lived in this country, as I have staved off this evil day. All I claim, however, is that I was a prophet. I said it would not come.

Mr. Belton

I said, on the Slaughter of Animals Bill, that if you were able to raise the price of cattle, you would be the best man in this country. You did not succeed in doing that.

Dr. Ryan

The best man, including Deputy Belton.

Mr. Belton

Not excluding me. You have not, however, reached that standard.

Dr. Ryan

Deputies on the opposite side have cried "Wolf" so often that we do not believe them when they talk about the evil day.

Mr. Haslett

There is one aspect of the question about the minimum price and the presence of the Government inspector at fairs that I would like to draw attention to. People who are ready to buy cattle are afraid to do so, and remain waiting and watching to see what the inspector is going to do. The result has been that in Monaghan the whole beef trade has been put on one side by reason of the presence of the Government inspector at the fairs.

Mr. Belton

So that the fairs would be better if the inspector did not attend them. The inspectors are, in fact, destroying the cattle trade. I hope the Minister will take notice of that.

Dr. Ryan

I omitted, by accident, to answer Deputy Finlay on the points he made in regard to tobacco growing. The position is that the rehandlers will pay the growers. The rehandler cannot pay until he sells to the factory and that may not take place until May or June.

Mr. Finlay

So that the farmers may not be paid before May or June.

Dr. Ryan

No.

Mr. Finlay

Will he be entitled to get a grant?

Dr. Ryan

The Deputy means will he get an advance from the rehandler. Of course, the grower will go to the rehandler who, he believes, will treat him best.

Mr. Finlay

But the farmer has to get ready for his new crop. The crop he has grown is in cold storage, so to speak, and he has no idea when he is to be paid for it.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 47; Níl, 34.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Brady, Brian.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Carty, Frank.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Cooney, Eamonn.
• Corish, Richard.
• Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
• Daly, Denis.
• Davin, William.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Doherty, Hugh.
• Flynn, John.
• Gibbons, Seán.
• Goulding, John.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hayes, Seán.
• Kehoe, Patrick.
• Kelly, James Patrick.
• Kelly, Thomas.
• Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kissane, Eamonn.
• Little, Patrick John.
• Maguire, Ben.
• Maguire, Conor Alexander.
• Moane, Edward.
• Moore, Séamus.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Pattison, James P.
• Pearse, Margaret Mary.
• Rice, Edward.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Martin.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Victory, James.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Francis C.

Níl

• Alton, Ernest Henry.
• Belton, Patrick.
• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Brennan, Michael.
• Broderick, William Joseph.
• Burke, James Michael.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Costello, John Aloysius.
• Davis, Michael.
• Dillon, James M.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
• Finlay, John.
• Fitzgerald-Kenny, James.
• Good, John.
• Haslett, Alexander.
• Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
• Keating, John.
• Lynch, Finian.
• MacDermot, Frank.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McGovern, Patrick.
• McGuire, James Ivan.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Nally, Martin.
• O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
• O'Mahony, The.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Redmond, Bridget Mary.
• Rowlette, Robert James.
• Thrift, William Edward.

Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Little and Smith: Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Bennett.

Question declared carried.