Fuair an Cléireach ón Sannaí Oifigiúil i bhFéimheacht deimhniú á rá go ndearnadh Liam Mac Maoláin, comhalta den Tigh seo, a bhreithniú ina fhéimhí an 16ú Meán Fómhair seo caite. Mholfainn don tSeanad a iarraidh ar an gCoiste um Nós Imeachta agus Pribhléidí scrúdú a dhZanamh agus tuarascáil a thabhairt ar an éifeacht atá ag an mbreithniú deimhneachta sin maidir le Liam Mac Maoláin a bheith ina chomhalta den tSeanad. Beidh ar chumas an Tí nuair a gheobhaid an tuarascáil aon bhreith is cuí leo a thabhairt.

The Clerk received from the Official Assignee in Bankruptcy a certificate to the effect that William McMullen, a member of this House, was adjudicated a bankrupt on the 16th September last. I would suggest to the Seanad that the question of the effect of this adjudication of bankruptcy on Mr. McMullen's membership of the Seanad should be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges for examination and report. The House on receipt of the report will be in a position to make any decision which it thinks fit.

I move:—

That the question of the effect of William McMullen's bankruptcy on his membership of the Seanad be referred to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges for examination and report.

I second that.

Question agreed to.

Tá orm a chur in iúl don tSeanad go raibh an tréimhse áirithe nócha lá dá dtagartar in Airteagal 23 den Bhunreacht, chun Seanad Éireann do bhreathnú Billí a tionscnadh, nó a meastar a tionscnadh, i nDáil Éireann, caite i gcás an Bhille Uchtála, 1952, ar an 13ú Deireadh Fómhair. Mar gheall ar na cúrsaí áirithe i dtaobh an Bhille seo, ní dóigh liom, agus tá comhairle an Choiste um Nós Imeachta agus Pribhléidí agam chuige sin, gur gá don tSeanad dul thairis sin ach gur ceart dóibh leanúint ar aghaidh le breathnú an Bille sa ghnáth-shlí.

I received a request from the Joint Committee of Women's Societies and Social Workers asking me to move an amendment to this section so as to secure that half the ordinary members would be women. I did not put down an amendment, partly because I have refrained from putting down amendments to this Bill unless there is consent, and also because there was not time.

I think it would be a mistake if women were not on the committee. I should like an assurance from the Minister in regard to that point. I think that, in the request which was made to me, it was argued that women are the natural protectors of children, and that on matters dealing with a home and knowledge of a foster-mother they would probably be very good judges. They also made the point that women are the best judges of women, though I disagree with that viewpoint.

Some women will be on the board, though I cannot say how many. There is no reason why they should not be on the board. I think we may take it for granted that at least one woman will be on the board. There is no objection in the world to that. I feel some woman should be on the board.

Question agreed to.

Section 9 agreed to.

SECTION 10.

I move amendment 1:

Before the Senator withdraws, might I be allowed to make some comment? The Joint Committee of Women's Societies and Social Workers asked me to raise this matter also. I am not sure that it can be easily solved, but it is a matter of some importance. As far as I can gather, they accept it as a general principle that the child must be more or less of tender age and they are not disposed to quarrel with the maximum of seven years—nor am I—but they are concerned about children who may be and are believed to be in homes, who would have been adopted but for the fact that there was a delay in passing the Bill or that there was no Adoption Bill. They are particularly anxious that some power should be given to the adoption committee to exceed the seven in exceptional cases during the first few years—they suggest five years but I would be inclined to suggest two or three years—of the operation of the Act.

The effect of that would be that the general principle of adoption would be the adoption of children between six months and seven years and that would be set out as the normal practice for the future; but power would be given to deal with children who would be adopted and could have been adopted and should have been adopted, where it may be rather hard that for the first few years we should restrict them rigidly to the seven years.

It is true to say that there was a great deal of consideration given to the question of age. As far as the earlier age is concerned, there is nothing to prevent people informally adopting a child—I wanted to make that point if Senator O'Reilly had wished to continue with his amendment. People can take children in for 12 months without legal adoption and then adopt them afterwards. It is generally agreed that seven years is the limit in which a child would be likely to feel himself or herself a member of the family. That was the idea, to try to get them before it would be too late, so that they might feel they were members of the family.

Seeing that there is no amendment being proceeded with, I suggest we should see how the Bill works out first. I have no doubt that some little flaws may be found in it later and we might need to have them rectified. Let us give this Bill a trial as it is. It has been well and carefully considered. It is said that at the age of seven one comes to the use of reason and the child starts to feel himself more a stranger in the family if he is much older than that. I think we should let it go at that and see how it works out. I understand that in England there were amendments and there may be things to clear up here after a year or two when we have seen the Bill working.

I think the Minister would agree that it is very hard to get in amending legislation in a case like this. Once the Bill goes through, it tends to become fairly permanent—at least, that is my experience—and I just wonder whether we could not do something on this section. There has been a great deal of delay, very wise delay, over this Bill, but certain children would have passed the age limit within these four or five months, and it is going to be a little hard on them to find that the axe has fallen just before their qualification date. I think the Minister would agree that it is unlikely there will be any amending legislation at an early date.

It would take some time, I have no doubt.

What I would like, if possible, is to give the committee discretion, for a year after the coming into operation of the Act, to exceed the seven years. I do not think it should be done except at the full discertion of the adoption committee, and I do not think the Minister would be taking any risk by putting in an amendment, which would come up on the Report Stage and which need not necessitate any delay, to provide for discretion for one year or two. I would be satisfied with one, but the ladies think it should be more. The real point that appeals to me is that of the border-line cases during the first year. The Minister's general argument with regard to amendments has already been accepted by me in my attitude to the Bill, but that, unfortunately, does not apply in this case, since no one could think of this Bill being amended within a year or a year and a half. In that case, this is something which we must provide for now or not at all.

I think we should be impressed by the Minister's statement that the younger the child comes into the family and is adopted as such the better for everyone. I think seven years is the right age, that, after seven, there should be no question of adoption at all. It is not fair, otherwise, to the child or to the family. We should be out to encourage such adoption, but if we ask that the age be stretched from seven to eight we will be asking too much.

I am not proposing to stretch the age from seven to eight. In a good number of cases there is reason to believe that, if this Bill had been passed six months ago, children would have been adopted. They were ready to be adopted and all I want is to put something in to cover such abnormal cases. I do not want to change the law. I want to deal with those who were approaching seven when this Bill was brought in and were in homes, and where there was delay because the people preferred to have legal adoption. I am asking the Minister to consider that point.

With respect to Senator Douglas, I think he is asking for an extension from seven to eight. If we make the Bill retrospective in order to bring in some cases—I do not believe there would be many—you will then meet other cases. I suggest we should stick rigidly to the seven years and if there are cases cut out, they have just got to remain so.

The only reply to Senator Colgan is that this is a Bill from which we hope a good deal of good will flow. I would not agree with an extension from seven to eight, but I can well see difficulties arising within the first 12 months. I would not go further than that. This Bill could have been passed six months ago and then certain children could legally have been adopted. Because of its being passed six months later, certain children will not be able to be legally adopted. There will always be hard luck cases. Even if the suggested amendment were brought in by the Minister on the Report Stage, there would still be hard luck cases. Since the introduction of the Bill and due to the fact that it has taken such a long time to reach this stage, there might be a great many children who could legally be adopted, where some people were looking forward to legally adopting them and now find it would be impossible. That is the only point I would like to stress.

I agree with what Senator Douglas and Senator Hearne have said. The consideration of the Bill has taken a long time. There will be families who have looked after children for some time and who would like to adopt them. They already love them and that is their home, but they will be precluded from adopting them.

I agree with Senator Douglas and other Senators. I think we have a difficult amendment to draft. I do not think that anybody but the Minister, in consultation with the parliamentary draftsman, could do this. An interim arrangement is suggested. It is not suggested to raise the age from seven years to eight years. A particular period of time, a year or 18 months, should be given and the board empowered to use their discretion. The only way it could be done would be for the Minister to consider it. The drafting of this, I think, would be a very difficult job. If the Minister is sincere, he could probably get an amendment drafted to do this in respect of cases that are now pending, but not extending it generally. I agree with Senator Miss Pearse on that.

There is another amendment to Section 19 which I am prepared to accept, but as regards any new adoption legislation, it would take a great deal of consideration. We had a great deal of consultation in connection with this Bill and I think it is better to adhere to what has been done. I can assure Senators that we have given a great deal of consideration to this matter.

I am very glad to know that the Minister is going to accept the amendment to Section 19. Although I raised this matter of Section 8 to be on the safe side, it struck me that if there was to be an amendment it would be by an extension of Section 19; but that is a detail. There is no question of pressing; it is simply a question of considering whether there was a new point of sufficient importance for the Minister to consider. The Minister is not being pressed. It struck me that the matter I raised was something which the Minister might be wise to look into.

I am not trying to rush the Bill. I do not care when we get the Report Stage.

All we want to do is to get the best possible measure.

Certainly.

I do not want to delay the Bill.

The phrase used in Section 19, “and satisfies the board that he has had the child under his care ...”, should meet most of the cases that might arise.

It does not. I want to cover the case where they are in the care of a home with intent to be adopted, but that does not come into the section.

I will wait for the Report Stage, and I will consider the matter.

If the Minister does nothing, I will not question him. I will not ask the Minister to hurry it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.

SECTION 12.

I move amendment No. 2:—

In sub-section (3), page 5, line 32, to delete “and”; and, at the end of the sub-section, to insert “the Baptist Union of Ireland and the Brethren, commonly known as the Plymouth Brethren”.

In moving the amendment, I wish to make it clear that I am proposing the addition of these two religious denominations for two reasons—because they have requested me to do so, and because they have assured me that they have received the written approval of authorised representatives of the four denominations already mentioned in the section, viz., the Church of Ireland, the Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church and the Religious Society of Friends.

I should like to say that this should be incorporated in the Bill. I know it has the approval of the religious community to which I belong. It is just unfortunate that we have to draw the line at a certain point. Various bodies may complain they are not included, but they really have no ground for complaint. The Minister has been very patient over this section, and it was discussed in the Press. I think we have reached the point where we should draw the line under this amendment.

Senator Stanford has put his finger on a point about which I was worried. When you name anything or anybody in an Act of Parliament there is always the danger that you will exclude somebody else no matter how you try to bring him within the ambit of the Act. I think there will always be somebody who will say: “Why were we not brought in?”

If Senator Colgan would consult the Constitution of this country he will find that in the section on religious denominations certain denominations are named and others not. I am sure very careful advice was taken in framing that Constitution. I think it gives a sufficient precedent for naming some denominations and not naming others.

I accept that, but I want to warn the Senator that we will be criticised for leaving somebody out.

I have already said that.

We are not used to being criticised, Sir!

I made a carefully prepared statement. I knew there might be criticism.

I should like Senator Colgan also to know that, in some cases of denominations who have not been included, representative people were consulted and were made aware of the position, and they did not see their way to take steps. I hope the Minister agreed with my statement—I think he did—because I was very anxious that it should be absolutely clear, in case there should be any reference to it again.

I am quite satisfied to accept this amendment.

This is merely a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 15, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 16, 17 and 18 agreed to.

SECTION 19.

I move amendment No. 4:—

In sub-section (1), page 7, lines 14 to 15, to delete the words “before the child attained the age of seven years and”.

The purpose of the amendment is to extend the special provisions of the section to all existing adoptions, even in cases where a child has been brought into a home after reaching the age of seven years. There would be a number of hard cases if the section were left as it is, but since the Minister has said he is prepared to accept the amendment, it is not necessary for me to say any more about it.

I am prepared to accept this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 5:—

In Section 19 (5), page 7, lines 25 and 26, to delete “twelve months” and substitute “two years.”

Might I point out that the amendment would be unduly restrictive unless the Senator proposes to leave in the phrase “or within such further period”? If that is left in, there is no real reason for extending the 12 months to two years. The power to do that in certain cases is still there.

I might ask, then, why the period of 12 months was put in the Bill, if the board have the power. I dislike giving boards power to do things if they think they should do them. We have many cases of courts and boards having authority to extend the time period if that court or board thinks it proper to do so. In making the laws here, we should say what is our view, what is the view of the Legislature, and I suggest that if Senator Quirke is correct in what he says——

There are many sins I have to answer for, but surely I must not answer for Senator Quirke's.

It can hardly be a case of mistaken identity. If what Senator Hearne says is correct, we should not have 12 months in the section at all. It is we here who should determine the period within which things should be done and we should not leave it to boards to allow things to be done within such time as they may think reasonable. Why should we ask them to lay down the law? We are here to do that.

I am not at all impressed, because the Senator is still leaving discretion to the board. His amendment substitutes two years for 12 months, but it leaves in the phrase “or within such further period as the board in any particular case may for reasonable cause allow.” They are still going to decide in three years, so that the whole basis of his argument goes by the board.

The whole basis of my argument might appear to go by the board——

I cannot have second sight.

——but if I am given my two years, I do not mind what the board do after that. We should give people the right to apply for the order without taking into consideration what the board might or might not do for at least two years. After that the board may or may not give the permission—I do not mind, so long as we have given the applicant two years.

Senator O'Reilly has made a weak case. All he is interested in are people who forget and who do not do what they should do, but the very people who forget within 12 months will also forget within two years, and if we are to try to legislate for people who do not do what they should do, we will get nowhere.

I do not think there is any force in that argument. The question is whether a period of 12 months is sufficient or should it be extended. I was inclined to think that the period was sufficient, but I feel that no harm could be done by extending it to two years. The only difference, in effect, will be that persons will have another year in which to send in a request and have it considered by the board as of right. Otherwise, they would first have to request the board to give them permission to make an appeal. It is entirely a matter of machinery and is not of very great importance.

I agree that it is not of very much importance, but I am surprised that the Senator thinks it worth while moving the amendment, because the provision “within such further period as the board may in any particular case consider reasonable” ought to cover it, but if he presses it, I will agree. I think it better to leave it at 12 months and let the board decide in any particular case. It would be all wrong to tie them to a particular period when he says they should have discretion. We cannot foresee all the cases that may arise. A particularly hard luck case may crop up and it would be very foolish not to give the board some discretion with regard to it. I accept the Senator's two years, still leaving in the discretion.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 19, as amended, agreed to.

Section 20 agreed to.

SECTION 21.

I have considered amendment No. 6 and I beg leave to withdraw it. I do not think that it is necessary to take the precaution I had intended to take to see that the parties are served with notice. I think that any corrections that might be made would not be very material.

Amendment No. 6, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 21 agreed to.

Section 22 to 26, inclusive, put and agreed to.

SECTION 27.

Government amendment No. 7:—

Before Section 28, page 9, to insert a new section as follows:—

For the purposes of—

(a) the Fatal Accidents Acts, 1846 to 1908, and

The purpose of the amendment is to provide that an adopted child will be deemed to be a member of the family for the purpose of the Fatal Accidents Acts which confer certain rights to compensation on dependent relatives of persons killed in accidents and for purposes of workmen's compensation.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 27, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 28 to 39, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 40.

Government amendment No. 8:—

In sub-section (1), paragraph (c), page 12, line 22, after “person” to insert “(not being a registered adoption society or a public assistance authority)”.

Might I ask on this amendment—I raised the question before when the Minister was presenting the Bill—what people who wish to adopt a child will do to make known their desire? They are prevented under the section, as I read it, from advertising. When I raised the question before, the Minister assured me that he would consider it.

The purpose of the amendment is to enable registered adoption societies and public assistance authorities to advertise. They may find it necessary or desirable to look for persons willing to adopt children and their advertisements may cause people to think of adopting children when they would not think of doing so if the idea were not suggested to them.

I agree that it should be confined to public assistance authorities and adoption societies.

That means, surely, that an individual may go to the registrar of an adoption society and if he tells the society that he would like to adopt a child, they will give him assistance and they will be quite entitled, if they believe him to be a proper person, to advertise.

Yes, or if a public assistance authority wished they could advertise, but not a private person.

The adoption society or public assistance authority may make it known that they have a child for adoption, but I am reversing the position. A person who does not know that these societies have a child and who wishes to adopt a child is, under the section, prevented from advertising that wish.

Our answer to that is that the societies will advertise regularly and presumably the people who want a child will look at the newspapers and see the advertisements.

They will not hide their light under a bushel.

People who are anxious to adopt a child will look to see where they can get a suitable child. That is the belief.

Some people may by sheer accident and with no premeditation become liable to a penalty. If they do not know the section of the Act there is nothing to prevent them from putting advertisements in the public newspapers saying that they wish to adopt a child and if they do they will be liable to a penalty.

So will the newspapers.

I would resist very strongly giving to any person the right to put in advertisements saying that he is going to adopt a child. I do not want to stress the dangers of grave evils arising from such advertisements, but we all know that the possibility of such evils is very great. The Bill—it is set out in Section 40—authorises only responsible bodies, public assistance authorities and adoption societies, to issue these advertisements. These bodies are free to let the individual who is desirous of adopting a child know and that is a far better method than to give the individual the right to publish advertisements.

I am not arguing for anybody's right to do anything of that nature. I am just pointing out that under the section as I read it—I may not be right—if a person by any omission does advertise the fact that he or she wishes to adopt a child, he leaves himself liable to a penalty.

And so do the newspapers.

I am not saying that they should do it. I am only saying that they are liable to a penalty.

If people are found in a public house after hours they are liable to a penalty.

As Senator Douglas has suggested, the newspapers will know very well that by publishing such advertisements they are liable to a penalty and it is most unlikely that they will do so.

The same thing applies to every law; everybody who breaks it runs the risk of being brought into court. It is the same with this; anybody who breaks it will have to be dealt with accordingly. This is the point that will cover the matter raised by Senator O'Donnell: knowing the newspapers as we do, we know that they will not stretch out their necks when they realise they are breaking the law and can be heavily fined if they publish such advertisements.

The best way to make it certain that the newspapers will inform these people is by making the newspapers also liable.

They are.

Under this Bill?

Yes.

I think we may be quite certain——

——that they will take care of themselves.

The real, practical safeguard which meets Senator O'Donnell's point is that the newspapers will not publish advertisements or allow themselves to be responsible for such advertisements.

I would be very glad to see some of the newspapers coming under the penalty.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 40, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment No. 9, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 41 agreed to.

Amendment No. 10, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 42 agreed to.

First and Second Schedules and Title agreed to.

Bill reported, with amendments.

When is it proposed to take the next stage?

In view of the fact that the Minister has undertaken to give consideration to points made by Senator Douglas, I suggest that the next stage be taken on the next sitting day.

Agreed, and ordered accordingly.

I move:—

That the Seanad hereby approves of the Garda Síochána Pensions Order, 1952, made on the 29th day of July, 1952, by the Minister for Justice, with the sanction of the Minister for Finance, under Section 13 of the Police Forces Amalgamation Act, 1925, and laid before the Seanad on the 1st October, 1952.

The main purpose of the Order is to amend two Articles—9 and 13 of the Garda Síochána Pensions Order, 1951, to rectify certain omissions from that Order. The Order also includes provision to reassess the pensions of certain ex-members. The details are as follows:—

The purpose of this Bill is to enable the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, which was negotiated in 1948, to be implemented. An earlier Convention, which was negotiated at an international conference held in 1929, was implemented here by the Merchant Shipping Act of 1933, and came into operation in 1934. In 1948 a further conference was convened in London on the initiative of the British Government to consider the revision of the 1929 Convention and to bring it into conformity with modern safety requirements.

The new Convention was signed by the delegates of 30 nations, including Ireland, and was expressed to come into force 12 months after 15 countries, including seven with not less than 1,000,000 gross tons of shipping, had conveyed their acceptance of it. The necessary number of acceptances have now been secured, and the Convention will come into force on 19th November next. It is proposed to accept the Convention on behalf of this country as soon as this legislation, which is necessary to implement it, has been enacted.

This is a Bill of very great importance and I am surprised that some of our front bench Senators have not given us the benefit of their wisdom and eloquence on it. There seems to be a curious silence on it. It is not the lowering or the increasing of tariffs or the equipping of bigger and better airfields that is in question, but human life is at stake. It is with some trepidation that I rise to open the debate when I expected only to intervene at the end of a long and serious discussion.

I should like to say, following Senator Stanford's remarks, that what struck me about the Bill was the very efficient way in which it seems to be drawn up, so far as the safety precautions required are concerned. At present, the public mind is very agitated by the disasters which have occurred on the railways in England. Thank goodness, we have not had any here, but there is a feeling that safety precautions have been very much relaxed in the past few years, especially since the war, and that the safety rules are not being observed. One of the most obvious things which seems to require attention on the railways in England is the question of timing. Everything seems to be late; in other words, there seems to be terrific inefficiency.

I could not help feeling, while the Minister was making his remarks, that a very great deal of trouble had apparently been gone to in preparing the Convention and I am very glad that we here are going to subscribe to it and ratify it. I very much welcome the Bill and I support it fully, but I think Senator Stanford has put his hand on one important point, the matter of inspection. I have not read the Bill fully, but it seems to me that there is not much use in making elaborate rules in respect of any sphere of activity—I am sure there is provision, but it is no harm to stress the point—unless we are going to see that they are carried out and Senator Stanford is quite right when he says that not only should proper provision be made for inspection but there should be the right kind of inspection. It should not be mere cursory inspection. We already have a very good record in Aer Lingus, where there must be a very fine system of inspection and where the safety precautions seem to be very well observed so far. I hope the same will be done in connection with this Convention.

All sides of the House will welcome the Bill as one which proposes to give effect to an international agreement. It is a Bill more for Committee Stage than for Second Reading, but we are all very pleased to hear from the Minister that, so far as life-saving precautions are concerned, our ships are as well equipped as most are, and the various sections which propose to go further in the matter aim at keeping abreast of the times. We should all congratulate the Minister on his decision to do so.

Maidir leis na lochtaí a fuair an Seanadóir Stanford ar an scéal, is é an tuiscint a bhaineas as an mBille gur Bille fónta é agus gur Bille é a dheimhníos dúinn go bhfuil an Rialtas agus an tAire atá i mbun gnóthaí eolasach ar na nithe atá ag teastáil. Molaimse cur an Bhille seo os ár gcóir. Tá rian ann go raibh imní an scéil ar an Aire agus ar an Rialtas agus is fónta an rud a thabhairt faoi ndeara ann go bhfuil an dlí a bhí ann cheana agus a bhaineann le mórloingeas le cur i bhfeidhm ar loingeas i bhfad níos lú agus ar beagnach an uile cineál loingis a théann thar cuanta na tíre seo amach. Is eol dom dár ndóigh, go bhfuil soláthar déanta cheana féin maidir le loingeas na hÉireann chun go mbeadh na nithe sin, sábháil anamnacha na ndaoine agus compord na ndaoine, faoi chúram ceart, ach is é an rud fónta atá ann ná go bhfuil leathnú déanta ar na cumhachtaí a bhí ag an Rialtas cheana chun scrúdú agus léirmheastóireacht a dhéanamh ar loingeas. Molaimse é sin agus is dóigh liom gur chóir dúinn bheith buíoch don Rialtas an Bille seo a thabhairt isteach.

I must confess that I am not quite sure of the significance of the use of the term “steamer” in the title of the Bill, but the Bill is intended to apply to all merchant ships whether they are propelled by steam, electricity, atomic energy or any other power.

I think that Senator Stanford will be reassured regarding the points raised by him if he re-reads Section 11. Under Section 11 there is power taken to make regulations dealing with life-saving appliances and among the regulations which will be made will be those defined under paragraph (b) which relates to the number and description and the mode of construction of boats, life-rafts, life-jackets and life-buoys, and under paragraph (e) the quantity, quality and description of other buoyant apparatus to be carried in addition to boats, rafts and life-buoys, and under paragraph (n) which relates to the practice in ships of boat drills and fire drills. In respect of most of these matters there are regulations in force at present. The new regulations will carry on the provisions of the old but will supplement them in so far as modern technical development makes it possible and in so far as experience shows it to be necessary.

The inspections are carried out by inspectors of the Department of Industry and Commerce and by ships' surveyors. They are very competent and highly-trained people. The certificate of safety which is issued to a vessel in respect of its life-saving appliances operates for a period of 24 months only —that is a provision of Section 20—or for such shorter periods as may be prescribed, and it may be extended as a special concession only for one further month. Within each two-year period, therefore, the ship has to be surveyed again in respect of the suitability of its life-saving appliances and get a new certificate that they are adequate and in proper order.

On a point of explanation. There is a means of coping with this problem, namely, by insisting that ships should be cleaned out at each port. Useful by-products can be obtained from the contents of the tanks that are cleaned out.

The Senator will appreciate that not 1 per cent. of the problem is caused by ships that call at our ports.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered: That the next Stage be taken on the next sitting day.

I move:—

That Seanad Éireann hereby approves of the Control of Imports (Quota No. 10) Order, 1934 (Road Vehicle Bodies) (Amendment) Order, 1952.

The control of imports of motor vehicles and assembled parts of vehicles designed for the carriage of passengers has been in operation here since 1934, but we have not had up to now similar restrictions upon the importation of vehicles and bodies of vehicles designed for the carriage of goods. Some time ago the National Union of Vehicle Builders and the Coachbuilders' Association, representing both parties concerned in the production of commercial motor vehicles, represented to me that it was desirable that similar quantitive control of imports of commercial vehicles should be established as in the case of private cars. They were concerned at the extent to which completely assembled commercial vehicles were being imported, even though they were subject to customs duty. While they claimed that motor vehicles of this character should be assembled here and the bodies for them constructed here, as cheaply or cheaper than elsewhere, there were such advantages in certain cases, particularly in the matter of expeditious delivery, that the tendency towards the importation of complete vehicles was growing.

As the immediate past President of the Society of Irish Motor Traders, I want to endorse what the Minister has just said. This little Bill removes an anomaly. Since the assembly of motor vehicles in this country was started some years ago, many vehicles had to be assembled here to a greater degree than in the case of others. Because of a loophole in the old arrangement, certain types of commercial vehicles came in here quite freely. We did not adopt any dog-in-the-manger attitude about the matter but many vehicles, competitive in type with others that were being built or assembled in this country, were being imported when there was no need to do so other than that by quick importation they were able to get business whereas those people here who were complying with the spirit as well as the letter of the law were taking longer to build and assemble the vehicle.

I move:—

That Seanad Éireann hereby approves of the Control of Imports (Quota No. 13) (Artificial Silk Piece-Goods) (Amendment) Order, 1952.

The House will recollect that last year and early this year there was rather considerable depression in the woollen and worsted industry. Various measures were adopted in order to restore the position. Steps were taken to restrict the importation of woollen and worsted cloths, the quota being reduced to a nominal size. It was found, however, that those measures were not effective because deliveries, in increasing quantities, of artificial woollens and worsted cloths made out of spun fibre yarns were coming into the country. These cloths, while of very poor quality, were so low in price that they were interfering with the sales of genuine woollen and worsted cloths and appeared likely to continue to do so to an increasing degree in the future. The position in that regard was, of course, intensified by the fact that the textile slump which affected us was world-wide in its effects and considerable quantities of these cloths were stored up in warehouses throughout the world, the owners of which were seeking an outlet for them anywhere they could get it and at almost any price. We decided, therefore, to amend this quota Order No. 13 so as to bring within it woven piece-goods containing more than 85 per cent. of weight of spun artificial silk stable fibre exceeding eight ounces in weight per yard but excluding certain piece-goods of a kind which we desired to continue to import. The necessity for the Order, therefore, was the fact that the importation of these spun rayon cloths manufactured to resemble woollen and worsted cloths was seriously militating against the recovery of trade in our woollen industry and the urgent representations which were made that, if their unrestricted import was permitted to continue, the steps that we had already taken to restore the woollen and worsted industry to normal conditions would be nullified.

At some stage the possibility of producing spun rayon fibre in this country will be considered, but it is a matter for the future. The quota fixed under this Order for the present period, of 75,000 square yards, is believed to be ample to cover the requirements of this cloth for particular purposes—either for the manufacture of soft toys or of certain types of boots and shoes and also to meet certain industrial users of a rayon type fabric. There is no desire, of course, to restrict the deliveries of these spun rayon cloths to anybody who requires them as a raw material in manufactures of that kind. It is only to prevent their importation when made to resemble woollen and worsted cloths to the detriment of our own woollen and worsted industry that restriction is necessary.

Did I understand the Minister to say that this would apply to cloths weighing over eight ounces only?

Yes, exceeding eight ounces.

Question put and agreed to.

I move:—

That Seanad Éireann hereby approves of the Control of Imports (Quota No. 47) (Road Vehicles) Order, 1952.

These motions were not put exactly in the order in which they have been dealt with. I have dealt with Quota No. 47 in my remarks dealing with Quota No. 10. One relates to complete vehicles and the other relates to assembled parts of vehicles.

Are we to understand that these vehicles were being imported although they could have been got at the same price here?

They were being imported and duty paid on them at a much higher price than that at which they could be assembled here.

For what reason?

It is difficult to understand. The only reason offered to me is that the prompt delivery induced people to pay more.

Part of the British export policy.

Question put and agreed to.

I move:—

That Seanad Éireann hereby approves of the Control of Imports (Quota No. 48) (Woollen and Worsted Yarns) Order, 1952.

The position in regard to woollen and worsted yarns is, I think, well known to the House. Because of the textile slump and the stock of woollen and woven fabrics in the country, the worsted spinning industry was badly hit. No orders were being received by the worsted spinners and the spinning mills went on to short-time working. We tried to remedy that situation by imposing a customs duty on imported yarn. There was no customs duty in force, because normally the prices of worsted yarns used here are fully competitive with those of imported yarns. The customs duty was not, however, effective enough. Again, because of the textile slump in Great Britain and elsewhere, there was an accumulation of yarns already made there and occasional lots were being offered at prices so low that they could be imported here duty paid at less than the economic price of manufacture here. It was not so much that the volume of yarn so coming in was considerable, but the expectation amongst the people concerned here, that the slump might continue and that in a month or two months' time they might be able to purchase yarns at still lower prices, stopped them from placing orders for those yarns with their own spinners. The purpose of this Order was to make it known to them that there was no advantage to be gained in not placing orders with our own spinners, that the import of yarn from abroad was going to be regulated in any case.

There was another reason why it was necessary, in any event, to control the import of worsted yarns and to keep that control in force for some time. My predecessor, towards the end of 1950, in the light of the international situation at that time, had an approach made through the Industrial Development Authority to the principal firm of worsted spinners in the country and that firm was asked to carry a stock of wool tops substantially in excess of the maximum stock the firm would normally carry for trading purposes. The firm undertook to comply with that request and purchased a very substantial quantity of wool tops over and above their normal needs. Unfortunately, the wool market broke shortly afterwards and the firm found themselves in quite considerable difficulties because of the stock of high-priced wool tops that they were holding.

They approached me in regard to it and an arrangement was made under which I undertook to facilitate them in liquidating this stock of high-priced tops over a period of time—two, three or four years. That involved the inevitability of worsted yarns being somewhat higher in price here during that period than they would have been if the wool tops had been purchased at the bottom of the market instead of at the top. The situation is not completely satisfactory, but I cannot see any other way out of it.

I wonder if the Minister is aware of the fact that many hosiery manufacturers just cannot get yarns due to the fact that the firm which is supposed to have had an excessive quantity of tops has no tops?

I did not say it had excess tops. The firm had this emergency stock. That is gone but the losses are still there. I am not saying that the actual tops are still in use. They were taken into use at a lower cost than would have had to be charged if the original cost was recovered. It is to the liquidation of the loss involved I was referring not to the actual physical stock.

Would the Minister give friendly thought to an application from hosiery manufacturers who are not at the moment in a position to get their supplies from the spinners of tops?

We have done that. We have made a new quota to cover the period up to the end of the year.

I doubt whether the quota is sufficient to cover their requirements. There is another point I should like to raise. The prohibition of the importation of yarn had a most extraordinary repercussion upon certain hosiery firms here who had tried to find an export market. The Minister was quite right in what he said up to a certain point, that if a firm had an export market they were to get supplies from their Irish suppliers at the existing external price. That did not happen.

In confidence, I can give information in respect of a very reputable firm which lost an export order as a result of this quota. They had bought wool at 13/6 as against 20/6 a lb. for the same yarn from their Irish suppliers. I know it is not the Minister's policy to stop the development of the export market. I think it would be worth while investigating and finding out why there should be such a big difference between the price of the yarn of the top spinners here and the price of the yarn on the external market.

In another connection, retailers are experiencing difficulty. There are certain types of yarn and wool which our machines are not capable of spinning. It seems to be an infliction on the public that they should be prevented from having that kind of wool if we are not manufacturing it here or providing a suitable substitute.

There ought to be exceptions made to the Order in connection with these types of wool which are not available on the home market. Very often we shout about the high prices by manufacturers, but the difference between hosiery prices and what they could be is due to a great extent to the fact that most of our hosiery manufacturers had to buy their yarns from the top spinners at their own prices. They had no alternative. I fully appreciate that spinners are essential to our country and I think they need every help and protection. Whilst we are doing that, I think the Minister might make it clear to the country that if hosiery prices are comparatively dearer than they should be it is due to the fact that we had to pay a higher price for our raw materials.

I was very glad to hear Senator O'Donnell quoting cases. I was going to speak about what I thought was a fault in the quota system. Senator O'Donnell has given the actual cases. He is a member of the Federation of Irish Manufacturers. I have been very closely associated with distribution. We are all very suspect in this matter but that should not be.

I feel that the quota system is of its nature very rigid. Once a quota is instituted the Department seems to have to deal with it in a purely rigid way. That is to say, everybody has to be lined up in the same box whereas business is not just like that. Some man might have a case for a very big quota while another man might not have a case for a quota at all.

There are cases where makers-up are not able to get the quality of wool they require for their machines. Even when a special case is made, the quota is given in a very parsimonious way. The feeling seems to be that if a case is made for 3,000 or 4,000 lb. of wool, 1,500 is given. I feel there should be a proper assessment made of the requirements of a particular firm and if they really want 4,000 lb. of wool they should get it provided the case is properly made and gone into. In my experience, nobody is ever given the quota they ask for whether he has a genuine case or not. That has been my experience ever since quotas were instituted. Business is so full of trouble nowadays that what I would like to see is freer examination of these things and some more freedom in the giving of quotas, where there is a genuine case.

Possibly the warning about fools rushing in where angels fear to tread might apply to me in rising to speak on this matter, but it strikes me that Senator O'Donnell speaks from the point of view of the manufacturers and Senator McGuire from the point of view of the retailers. What I should like to hear from the Minister is an indication as to when this country's requirements in woollen and worsted yarns can be met without importation and when there will be more competition in the trade so as to ensure that there will be no fictitious pricing of these yarns. The Minister indicated that a particular firm had a very big stock of wool tops which might be regarded as stockpiling and apparently that position was brought about by his predecessor's arrangement to accumulate a quantity of this raw material.

Nothing has given me more difficulty during this past year than the problem of worsted yarn production. I found that this stock of wool tops had been purchased on a specific request from the Government and with an assurance that if any difficulty was occasioned to the firm concerned by reason of their compliance with the Government's request, they would be helped out. I felt that the obligation was on me to redeem that undertaking and to help the firm out. The position was not made any easier, as the House will appreciate, by the fact that the request to carry this emergency stock of wool tops was directed to one firm, whereas there are other firms in the country manufacturing worsted yarns which were not embarrassed in that way. There was no easy solution and there is not a solution yet, nor will there be a completely happy situation until the losses resulting from the importation of that emergency stock have been liquidated and then I am confident that our worsted manufacturers will be again producing yarn, as they were before, as good and as cheap as any that can be imported.

It is true that for the time being our hosiery manufacturers selling in the internal market have to pay more for their yarn than the price at which they could now import it—not a great deal more but enough to make some difference in the price level here. The effect of that situation has been offset to some extent by the rise in wool prices internationally since. A quota Order would not have been thought necessary at all in normal circumstances. There was manufacturing capacity for worsted yarn in this country adequate to our requirements and thoroughly efficient. There was no need for protection of this kind and there would not have been but for the abnormal situation which arose.

The Order had necessarily to apply to all yarns of wool or hair as there was no means by which the Revenue Commissioners could distinguish between one type of yarn and another but it was recognised that there are certain types of yarn not manufactured here which are required for certain purposes and a quota was fixed to permit of the importation of quantities of these types of yarn.

I would like to ask the Minister one question arising out of this speech. Could he give any indication as to the period during which it would be necessary to keep this Order in being so that the losses will be recouped. When might we hope to come back to normal?

That is a most difficult question to answer. If I could be assured that wool prices were going to remain stable during the next four or five years I would naturally be disposed to spread the recovery of the loss over the longest possible period so as to get the least impact upon current prices, but if, as seems to be likely, there is a recovery in wool prices the period will be much shorter because the nearer the prices of wool get now to what they were when these tops were purchased the less the loss will be.

The Minister is aware of the fact that many shops, some of them primarily living on their sales of wool, are dependent on a total quota of 10 lbs. for six months. In cases of extraordinary hardship of this nature a case, say, where a woman and her daughter have a wool shop and are dependent on 10 lbs. of wool as a result of this Order, would he reinvestigate the matter.

When this Order was made it was realised that there was a question of classes of yarn that are not made here at all, so straight away every manufacturer got a licence of 100 lbs. and every retailer a licence of 10 lbs. of these lines. They were intended to be used solely for classes of yarns which are not made here and if any importer used it to import a type of yarn which is so manufactured he has no grievance if he finds himself without the special varieties.

Would the Minister do something with the officials of his Department in order to deal with these cases of hardship and expedite the granting of licences?

Certainly. I was not aware of that.

Question put and agreed to.

I move:—

That Seanad Éireann hereby approves of the Control of Imports (Quota No. 49) (Single Cotton Yarns) 1952.

I spoke in public some time ago about the position of our cotton industry. It has developed tenfold during the past 20 years but there is still very considerable scope for further development. It is only since 1946 that production of cotton yarn has been undertaken although there are now four firms in the business. It is desired to encourage in every way the production of cotton products from raw cotton rather than from imported cotton yarn and for that reason this quota Order was made. The market for cotton yarn will, of course, increase as the cotton-weaving industry expands up to the point to which we think it is practical to go and consequently there will be, we hope, further extension of the cotton spinning end of the business also.

The same position arises here as in the case of the woollen and worsted yarn. Again, the secondary users here have been affected to a great extent by the creation of these new factories to which I wish every success and towards which there is no hostility whatsoever on the part of the secondary users.

Cotton yarn is about the most delicate yarn that one could touch from the financial point of view. It varies from day to day in keen markets by eighths of a penny a lb. and needs to be very carefully watched from the point of view of prices. I think it can be said that it is used in nearly every article of clothing which we wear nowadays. The four mills mentioned by the Minister are very new, and, I am told, are excellently equipped and built. I am also told that they will in time be able to compete more than successfully with outside competition.

Meanwhile, I again make a plea for the secondary producer. I have in mind the manufacturers of interlock and other cotton piece-goods in the underwear industry. We have in this country factories which are certainly as efficient as any in Europe producing interlock underwear. These factories would seriously be affected by any drastic curtailment of supplies of the counts of cotton which they require. I am not quite sure that any of the mills here are fully equipped to deal with certain counts that are required. The new mill in County Cork which was formally opened by the Minister a fortnight ago will in time possibly be able to cater for such yarns but my plea is on behalf of the secondary producers who, in the meantime, may be restricted. I hope the Minister will ensure that they will not be held up until substitute supplies are made available from Irish sources.

I think it is true to say that the development of rayon weaving and of the hosiery trade has almost reached a point where the manufacture of rayon yarn in this country seems to be practicable.

I am very glad to hear the Minister say so.

I am very glad to hear it.

We have been exploring various possibilities in that regard. As the House is aware, this is rather a difficult time in which to arouse interest in the prospect because most of the firms abroad have taken a fairly bad beating during the slump. I hope that some progress will be made in that direction in the near future. I am very conscious of the fact that in calculating the size of the market for single cotton yarn we are, to a large extent, guessing. Because of that, we fixed a very short first quota period. We have worked on three-monthly periods since this Order was made. We did that in order to achieve maximum flexibility so that if we found that the quotas were inadequate they could be adjusted. Fairly liberal quotas were made on the basis of 750,000 lbs. per three months. We think that the quotas represent about half our present user of single cotton yarn.

It is true that the position is different in regard to different types of yarn. Most of the existing mills are doing the coarser yarns—the lower counts. They are only now venturing into the manufacture of finer yarns. Consequently, these quotas are intended to be available to the hosiery manufacturers who are the principal users of the finer yarns.

I do not want to be taken as complaining about civil servants, but may I ask the Minister to ensure that where applications have been made for licences they will receive prompt attention? I have heard that it takes a very long time to get the licences and that, in the meantime, the industries are held up for supplies.

I shall look into the matter. I have not heard about it.

Question put and agreed to.

The Seanad adjourned at 5.50 p.m. sine die.