Dáil Éireann

Year	Amount
	£
1945/46	4,477
1946/47	43,419
1947/48	402,380
1948/49	812,447
1949/50	1,003,277
1950/51	1,189,554
1951/52	1,341,924
1952/53	1,744,949
1953/54	2,622,726
1954/55	3,132,153
1955/56	3,930,632

Such rural development as was done prior to 1945/46 was carried out as an integral part of the Electricity Supply Board's electrical development and was not separately recorded.

Mr. MacEntee: This is a supplementary question. Would the Tánaiste be good enough to tell the House how [780] many numbers are contained in this tabular statement?

Mr. Norton: When the Deputy sees it he can count them.

Mr. Aiken: May I ask the Tánaiste whether Fine Gael or Cumann na nGaedheal spent one penny during the time they were in office from 1922 to 1932 on rural electrification?

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins: They were resisting the suggestion that it was a white elephant.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins: asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state the number of occasions on which the E.S.B. sought and were granted permission to increase their rates of charge for electricity, the dates upon which such permission was given, the percentage increases allowed each time, and whether on such occasions the claims for increases were examined by any authority outside the Civil Service.

Mr. Norton: As the reply is in the form of a tabular statement, I propose, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, to have it circulated with the Official Report.

Following is the statement:—

APPLICATION BY E.S.B. FOR PERMISSION TO INCREASE CHARGES FOR ELECTRICITY

Date of Application	Nature of Application.	Decision and date notified.
14th October, 1941	Increase of 10% on existing charges (pre-war charges)	Approved but excluding Public Lighting and Unmetered and Slot-Meter Consumers. 30th October, 1941.
25th September, 1942	Increase of further 10% on pre-war charges except	Refused—1st October, 1942.
	(a) Public Lighting charges,
	(b) Unmetered current and coin limiter charges,
	(c) slot meter charges.
	(d) fixed charges based on valuation or floor area,
	(e) maximum unit rate for private residences in Cork City Area.
16th March, 1943	Increase of 30% on pre-war charges in lieu of 10% increase approved on 30th October, 1941.	Refused—9th April, 1943.
[781][782]17th August, 1943	Above application renewed.	Increase to 20% above pre-war charges approved, except Public Lighting, Unmetered and Slot-Meter Consumers on which 10% above charges in force before 14th October, 1941, was authorised—15th September, 1943.
14th July, 1944	Increase of 50% on existing unit rates of charge—no change in fixed charge.	Refused—21st July, 1944.
19th March, 1945	Above application renewed.	Increases approved as follows:
		Current Limiters and Slot-Meter Consumers Public Lighting All other charges (except Cement Ltd.)	to 20% above pre-war rates. to 30% above pre-war rates. to 40% above pre-war rates.
		Cement Ltd.—as per contract. —31st May, 1945.
1st May, 1951	Increase of 0.3d. per Unit except in the case of night storage heating which would be increased by 0.2d. per Unit.	Approved—6th July, 1951.
19th March, 1952	Increase charges for water-heating during summer months from 0.7d. to 1d. per Unit for consumption above 360 units in each bi-mensal period.	Approved—6th May, 1952.
17th September, 1952.	Increase of 11% approximately in Industrial Maximum Demand Tariff.	Approved—26th January, 1953.
27th April, 1956	Increase of approximately 10% in charges.	(Minister requested Prices Advisory Body to hold a Public Inquiry on the application. Inquiry held on 29th June, 1956. Report of Advisory Body submitted to Minister).

NOTES.

(1) An application on 14th January, 1953, for approval for revision of two-part tariffs involved no increase in revenue.

Decision: Minister noted proposals and stated that, in view of the statutory obligations of the board and as the proposals were not designed to produce increased revenue, he had no observations to offer. (27/3/1953.)

(2) The application made by the board in April, 1956, was the only one examined by an authority outside the Civil Service.

Mr. Aiken: Would the Minister inform the House how much the electricity consumers have to pay in order to make up for the subsidy for rural electrification which the Coalition withdrew from the E.S.B.?

Mr. A. Calleary: asked the Minister for Education if he is now in a position to state whether it is proposed to erect a new school at Doohoma or to enlarge the existing one, and when work is likely to begin.

[783]Minister for Education (General Mulcahy): The proposal to provide a new national school to accommodate all the pupils attending the existing Doohoma National School, which has been overcrowded for some years, was abandoned by the late Reverend Manager for the reason that he found it impossible to obtain in close proximity to the present school a suitable site for a new school.

A suggestion was made by the late Reverend Manager, in June, 1956, that instead of the building of a new school the existing school might be extended by the provision of another classroom and of additional cloakroom and sanitary accommodation, within the compass of the existing site and a small extension of the site offered by the late Reverend Manager. My Department awaits a report from the Commissioners of Public Works on this suggestion.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins: asked the Minister for Education if he will state in respect of each financial year since 1932-33 the amount of State money spent on the building of schools.

General Mulcahy: I regret that, as the records kept by the Commissioners of Public Works do not distinguish between expenditure on new national schools and on the enlargement and improvement of existing national schools, I am unable to give the Deputy the figures of expenditure on new schools only.

I propose, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, to circulate in the Official Report (a) a statement giving particulars of State grants expended on new national schools and on works to existing national schools in each financial year in the period covered by the Deputy's question, and (b) a statement showing the total expenditure on the building and equipment of Vocational schools and of extensions to Vocational schools in each financial year during the period concerned, together with an explanatory note on the method whereby the State contributes to such expenditure.

Following is the statement:—

[784] FINANCIAL YEARS 1932/33 TO 1955/56

A. State expenditure on the erection of new National Schools and the enlargement and improvement of existing National Schools.

B. Total expenditure on the provision and equipment of Vocational Schools and of extensions to Vocational Schools (Vide Explanatory Note).

Financial Year	Expenditure underA	Expenditure underB
	£	£
1932/33	65,774	11,118
1933/34	100,834	56,931
1934/35	128,538	57,408
1935/36	126,967	115,691
1936/37	132,122	133,483
1937/38	159,285	95,448
1938/39	197,372	118,047
1939/40	229,222	135,286
1940/41	221,248	71,987
1941/42	212,139	41,338
1942/43	241,090	44,019
1943/44	256,511	50,805
1944/45	227,684	23,710
1945/46	176,087	16,928
1946/47	173,856	11,899
1947/48	134,942	33,395
1948/49	308,208	26,983
1949/50	513,960	91,035
1950/51	530,313	133,773
1951/52	552,151	164,668
1952/53	684,356	295,113
1953/54	1,071,053	258,862
1954/55	1,050,750	245,564
1955/56	1,042,029	328,295

B—EXPLANATORY NOTE.—Funds required for the provision and equipment of vocational schools are found in either of two ways:—

(a) Loans raised by the Vocational Education Committees themselves and repaid by them out of their ordinary income; of which income it is estimated that the State provides approximately 60 per cent.

(b) Grants by local rating authorities, the loans required for purposes of making the grants being raised and repaid by the rating authorities and one-half of the repayment charges being recouped to them by the Department.

Mr. MacEntee: Arising out of the Minister's uninformed reply, will he include in this tabular statement an index of the building costs for each year in respect of the years covered by the statement?

General Mulcahy: What does the Deputy mean by the words he has used?

[785]Mr. MacEntee: You would not permit me to tell the Minister for Education what I mean by an index of building costs. Everybody knows the costs of building in 1955 were substantially higher than in the year 1937 and that a mere statement of expenditure in relation to these years does not convey an accurate picture of the actual amount of building carried out.

General Mulcahy: Where does this lead us to?

Mr. Aiken: Arising out of the Minister's reply, would he say how much was spent on national schools between 1922 and 1932 when the Minister and his colleagues were in control? Is it not a fact that there was about ten times as much spent on the Governor General than on schools?

General Mulcahy: I am sure that an examination of that period would be most revealing and instructive.

Mr. Breslin: asked the Minister for Justice if he will give his reasons for appointing recently a peace commissioner in Falcarragh, County Donegal, which resulted in two peace commissioners, father and son, being resident in the same house and within 20 yards of a third commissioner in the town, and why no appointment was made in the outlaying areas of the Falcarragh Garda district.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Everett): One of the Peace Commissioners resident in Falcarragh being a very elderly man was unable to perform all the duties associated with the position. As it was essential that at least two active Peace Commissioners should be available in the area it was decided to make another appointment and his son, being suitable in every way, was selected.

There is one Peace Commissioner in the outlying areas in the Falcarragh Garda Sub-District and the appointment of a second is under consideration.

Mr. MacEntee: Is it proposed to make the Peace Commissionership a [786] hereditary office, so that the son will be appointed to follow the father?

Mr. O'Sullivan: Like Deputy Lemass's son.

Mr. MacEntee: He is going to follow his father.

(Interruptions)

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins: asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs if he will give an estimate of the total loss incurred by the State in connection with the Athlone short-wave broadcasting station from its inception until its recent demise.

Minister for Posts and Telegraphs (Mr. Keyes): The original cost of the transmitter, masts, aerials and building for the short-wave station was £142,000 (approximately). Subsequently a further £17,000 was spent on spare parts for the station.

The aerials and masts were sold recently for £875 but so far a purchaser has not been found for the transmitter or spare parts.

Mr. Aiken: Would the Minister inform the House what the percentage of the total cost of the short wave station would be for keeping the British Royal Family in the Park, since the O'Higgins's started the racket?

Mr. Donnellan: There is something wrong to-day.

Mr. Sweetman: The Deputy is in very bad humour.

Mr. Bartley: asked the Minister for External Affairs if he will state the estimated increase in the area of our territorial waters which would result from applying the principles declared in the decision in the case of Great Britain versus Norway; and whether his statement in the debate on his Estimate that Great Britain and the United States would object to enlargement of the area of territorial waters had reference to enlargement in accordance with these principles.

[787]The Taoiseach (for the Minister for External Affairs): The principles enunciated by the International Court of Justice in the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries case, to which the Deputy refers, relate to the measurement of the breadth of the territorial sea from straight base-lines drawn between outermost headlands, islands and rocks instead of from low-water mark on the coast. Any increase in the area of the territorial seas to be gained from the adoption of the straight base-lines method would depend on the nature of the coast and the points between which it was decided to draw straight base-lines.

The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. Bartley: Can the Taoiseach say whether any map has been prepared showing that the net increase of our territorial area would be 5,000 miles?

The Taoiseach: The Deputy will appreciate that that all depends on the way the map is drawn. Maps have been prepared by the various Departments, as the Deputy is probably aware from the Question he put down some time ago, but the whole matter is so indeterminate at the moment that it is impossible to give any idea as to what area would be gained by adopting a particular method. There might be some gain here, some loss there. The International Law Commission met last July to consider questions of this character and other related matters dealing with the territorial seas and they have made recommendations to the United Nations. It is believed that those recommendations will be considered at the meeting of the General Assembly which is taking place at present. It would be quite impossible, and certainly not desirable, that we should take any advance decision on these very complex matters until we see what will be the result of the recommendations. The recommendations, among others, suggest that the various nations concerned should meet together and form an international Convention dealing with all the matters related to these very difficult questions of territorial seas.

[788]Mr. Bartley: Do I gather then that the decision to drop the proceedings already initiated are due to this new development in the United Nations and not due to any anticipated objection on the part of Great Britain and the United States?

The Taoiseach: I do not know to what proceedings the Deputy is referring. Proposals were considered in connection with a Bill. It would be quite inappropriate to deal with that Bill until we know what may or may not be agreed upon by the various nations interested in maritime matters. So far as the decision of the International Court is concerned, controversy arose on the length of the territorial area which the various nations claimed; some claimed three miles, some 12 and some very much more. It is on that matter that the real controversy arises.

Mr. Bartley: Can the Taoiseach say definitely in relation to one matter, namely the substitution of straight lines for curves, that such a new method of delineating our territorial limits would in fact increase the area of our territorial waters?

The Taoiseach: I think it is probable but one cannot say for certain. That is as far as I can go at the present moment in relation to matters dealing with extra-territorial jurisdiction. The matter is extremely complex and it is difficult to deal with one matter in isolation.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins: asked the Minister for External Affairs if he will state the date by which the purchase of the present embassy building in Paris was completed.

The Taoiseach: The purchase of the present Embassy building in Paris was completed on the 14th May, 1954.

Mr. Aiken: Could the Taoiseach inform the House how much pressure he is under to sell more State property in order to provide another office for another O'Higgins?

Mr. MacEntee: Could the Taoiseach [789] state the date upon which the negotiations for the purchase of this building were initiated?

An Ceann Comhairle: That is a separate question.

Mr. MacEntee: Surely it arises out of this question as to the date on which the purchase of this building was completed.

Mr. Donnellan: You initiated the whole thing.

Mr. Kyne: asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will state (a) the peak figures on the unemployment register for each of the years 1947 to 1955, and up to the latest available date in 1956; and (b) the figures in respect of insured persons for each of the years in question.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Corish): As the reply is in the form of a tabular statement, I propose, with your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, to have it circulated in the Official Report.

Following is the statement:—

Year	Peak figure of persons registered at local offices of the Department of Social Welfare	Number of insured persons
	(a)	(b)
1947	76,906	691,000
1948	80,667	697,000
1949	84,506	702,000
1950	72,098	708,000
1951	68,228	707,000
1952	75,428	710,000
1953	89,579	724,000
1954	79,690	727,000
1955	74,425	726,000
1956	71,661	(Not available)

Mr. Breslin: asked the Minister for Finance whether imported wicker herring baskets are subject to the Special Import Levy, and if so, if in view of the rather severe impost thus [790] placed on our herring industry, he will remit the levy.

Minister for Finance (Mr. Sweetman): Wicker herring baskets are liable to Special Import (No. 2) Levy under the heading “articles of basketware and wickerwork, other than furniture” at the rate of 37½ per cent. ad valorem (full rate) or 25 per cent. (preferential). Herring baskets are made in this country and I have had no representations that fishermen have any difficulty in obtaining supplies of Irish made baskets. I see no reason therefore why the Levy should be removed from the imported articles.

Mr. MacEntee: asked the Minister for Finance if he will state in regard to the recent National Loan (a) the total amount received in public subscriptions other than from the banks; (b) the amount provided by persons or corporations subscribing sums of (i) £100 and over but less than £1,000, (ii) £1,000 and over but less than £5,000. (iii) £5,000 and over but less than £20,000, (iv)£20,000 and over but less than £50,000, and (v) £50,000 and upwards; (c) the gross total subscribed by persons or corporations subscribing sums of £5,000 and upwards; and (d) whether there was any underwriting or analogous agreement in connection with the issue of the Loan, and if he will state the terms of such agreement and with whom made.

Mr. Sweetman: Of the total issue of £12,000,000 stock of the 5½ per cent. National Loan, 1966, £9,166,300 was subscribed by the public, the balance being taken up as to £1,316,000 each by the Minister for Finance and the commercial banks, and as to £201,700 by the sub-underwriters. The issue was underwritten jointly by the banks and the Minister for Finance.

Following is an analysis of the applications received from the public:—

[791][792]Category	Number	Amount
		£
Up to £500	13,117	3,119,620
Over £500 and up to £1,000	2,560	2,272,120
Over £1,000 and up to £5,000	775	1,710,540
Over £5,000 and up to £10,000	35	291,950
Over £10,000 and up to £50,000	34	882,070
Over £50,000	8	890,000

The gross total subscribed by persons or corporations subscribing sums of £5,000 and upwards was £2,304,020.

Mr. Cunningham: asked the Minister for Finance what were the considerations which caused a reduction from £15,000 in 1955 to £700 this year in the allocation of grants under the Employment and Emergency Schemes Vote to County Donegal.

Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for Finance (Mr. Donnellan): The amounts referred to in the Deputy's question do not represent the allocations of grants from the Employment and Emergency Schemes Vote for County Donegal either in 1955-56 or in the current year. Grants are made under five separate sub-heads of the Vote and the total for last year was £84,000. The allocation for the current year under all sub-heads is not yet finally determined, but the amount earmarked to date for County Donegal is £40,530.

The figures mentioned by the Deputy refer to the allocations under sub-head G of the Vote for Rural Employment Schemes carried out by the Donegal County Council, mainly on county roads. This sub-head has always been joined with the Minor Employment Schemes sub-head H to form a combined programme of employment schemes in rural areas, and the figures for the combined allocation for County Donegal under the two sub-heads are:—

1955-56	£52,417
1956-57	£20,882

It has been necessary, for reasons already explained to the Dáil to secure economies in public expenditure in the current year and it is on that account that allocations from this Vote have been reduced in the case of County Donegal, in common with other areas.

Mr. Cunningham: I asked the Minister a specific question dealing with a certain fact. He has given me figures for combined schemes. Is that in order?

Mr. MacEntee: No, it is not. It is under a separate sub-head in the Estimate.

Mr. Norton: Deputy MacEntee will now clarify the position, assisted by his assessor.

Mr. Cunningham: I have asked if the Minister is in order in giving a reply which is not a reply to my question?

Parliamentary Secretary to the Government (Mr. O'Donovan): Deputy MacEntee will give the answer to the Deputy.

Mr. Norton: Deputy MacEntee will clarify the position for him.

Mr. J. Lynch: A reduction from £50,000 odd to £20,000 represents a withdrawal of labour from the Gaeltacht areas. This is the Vote upon which these people depend largely for their income. Would the Minister for the Gaeltacht not take note?

Mr. Cunningham: Could the Parliamentary Secretary say how much of the £700 will be represented in administrative charges, engineering costs and so on and how much of it will be paid in wages? What effect will that have on the unemployment situation, a situation for which this Vote is supposed to cater?

Mr. Donnellan: I think that is a very separate question.

Mr. Cunningham: It certainly is. It is a six-mark question.

[793]Mr. Galvin: asked the Minister for Finance if he will state the quantity and value of floor coverings of wool or fine hair purchased by the Commissioners of Public Works in each of the years ended 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955 and in the ten months ended 30th October, 1956, distinguishing in respect of each year between imported and home manufactured carpets; and if he will [794] state in respect of both categories the quantities and values of Gripper Axminster, Spool Axminster, Chenille Axminster, Handtufted carpets, Wilton carpets and other types contained therein.

Mr. Donnellan: The reply is in the form of a tabular statement which, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, it is proposed to circulate with the Official Report.

Following is the statement:—

[795][796] STATEMENT SHOWING THE QUANTITY AND VALUE OF FLOOR COVERINGS OF WOOL OR FINE HAIR PURCHASED BY THE COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC WORKS DURING EACH OF THE YEARS 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955 AND IN THE TEN MONTHS ENDED 31ST OCTOBER, 1956.

Year	Axminster Processed*(All Types)				Wilton Processed(All Types)				Hand Tufted				Other Types
Home- Manufactured		Manufactured Abroad		Home- Manufactured		Manufactured Abroad		Home- Manufactured		Manufactured Abroad		Home- Manufactured		Manufactured Abroad
	Square Yds.	Cost£	Square Yds.	Cost£	Square Yds.	Cost£	Square Yds.	Cost£	Square Yds.	Cost£	Square Yds.	Cost£	Square Yds.	Cost£	Square Yds.	Cost£
1952	865	1478	—	—	—	—	48	193	118	991	—	—	—	—	30	118
1953	426	842	—	—	—	—	—	—	107	1019	—	—	—	—	320	445
1954	774	1439	—	—	136	326	—	—	86	839	—	—	—	—	4	6
1955	1214	2115	—	—	197	567	—	—	437	3968	—	—	—	—	—	—
1956(1/1/56- 31/10/56)	756	1897	—	—	—	—	—	—	332	3686	—	—	—	—	—	—

*Records showing the quantity and value of each of the three types of Axminster Processed Carpets are not available but it is estimated that the Spool type constitutes approximately 90% of the total quantity involved.

[797]Mr. Galvin: asked the Minister for Finance if he will state (a) the quantity and value of floor-coverings of linoleum and similar material purchased by the Commissioners of Public Works in each of the years 1952, 1953, 1954 and 1955; (b) for each year the quantity and value of foreign-made material purchased; and (c) how many firms were [798] requested to tender for the Commissioners' requirements.

Mr. Donnellan: The reply is in the form of a tabular statement which, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, it is proposed to circulate with the Official Report.

The following is the statement:—

STATEMENT showing the quantity and value of floor covering of linoleum and similar material purchased by the Commissioners of Public Works in each of the years 1952, 1953, 1954 and 1955; the source of origin of the material; and the number of firms specifically requested to tender.

Year	Quantity in square yards	Value	Source of Origin	Number of Firms specifically requested to Tender.
		£
1952	3,900	2,565	All of the material was manufactured abroad, suitable home manufactured material not being available.	1
1953	1,800	1,080	5
1954	13,300	7,140	9
1955	6,200	3,030	6

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins: asked the Minister for Finance if he will state in respect of each financial year since 1932-33 the amount of State money spent on arterial drainage.

Mr. Donnellan: The information sought is in the form of a tabular statement which, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to have circulated with the Official Report.

Following is the statement:—

EXPENDITURE on arterial drainage including Central Engineering Workshop expenses but excluding Headquarters engineering and administration charges.

	£
1932/3	52,500
1933/4	66,500
1934/5	41,500
1935/6	29,000
1936/7	41,500
1937/8	37,500
1938/9	18,000
1939/40	14,500
1940/1	16,500
1941/2	15,000
1942/3	8,000
1943/4	25,500
1944/5	26,000
1945/6	13,500
1946/7	18,000
1947/8	44,000
1948/9	295,000
1949/50	400,000
1950/1	460,000
1951/2	725,000
1952/3	715,000
1953/4	610,000
1954/5	630,000
1955/6	705,000

Mr. Palmer: Would the Parliamentary Secretary state in what years during that period was the least amount and the greatest amount spent?

Mr. MacEntee: We know the Government is extravagant. You do not have to tell the country that.

Mr. Aiken: Could the Parliamentary Secretary inform the House whether any full State grant was given for arterial drainage, or any other type of drainage, during the whole of the period from 1922 to 1932?

Mr. Donnellan: If the Deputy puts down the question I will give the answer.

Mr. Aiken: There was not a full State grant.

Mr. Donnellan: In reply to Deputy Palmer, it has risen from an expenditure [799] of £8,000, State grant, in 1942-1943, to £705,000 at the present day.

Mr. MacEntee: Is it not a fact that the main arterial drainage scheme upon which the Government is at present employed is draining young men and women out of this country?

(Interruptions).

An Ceann Comhairle: Order!

Mr. Casey: Could we be told why Deputy MacEntee has had to resort to the strategy of putting down questions Nos. 17 and 18 in the name of Deputy Cunningham and Deputy Galvin when he could easily have put them down under his own name?

Mr. Donnellan: Because he is not interested in the job himself.

An Ceann Comhairle: Question No. 21.

Mr. MacEntee: Wait, Sir.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Chair has called the next question.

Mr. MacEntee: No, Sir. A question has been asked here in which my name has been mentioned. I trust that the Deputy who has put that question to you will be in a position to furnish to you the grounds on which he has based that question.

General Mulcahy: Deputy Casey ought to know this is the “wall of glass” policy back again.

Mr. MacEntee: Deputy Casey happens to be interested in the City of Cork. Deputy Galvin represents the City of Cork. If Deputy Galvin is more alive to the interests of his Cork constituents than Deputy Casey is, then Deputy Casey ought not to be asking me questions.

(Interruptions)

An Ceann Comhairle: Order!

Mr. MacEntee: Resign. Resign.

Mr. Donnellan: What interests has Deputy MacEntee in Cork?

An Ceann Comhairle: Order!

[800]Mr. MacEntee: But, Sir——

Minister for Health (Mr. O'Higgins): Sit down.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy MacEntee will resume his seat. I am taking the next question.

Mr. MacEntee: Too dirty.

Mr. Calleary: asked the Minister for Finance if in connection with the drainage of the River Moy he will state whether all surveys and plans are now complete, and when work on the scheme is likely to start.

Mr. Donnellan: The engineering survey of the River Moy catchment area has been completed and work on the design and preparation of a scheme is proceeding. I regreat it is not yet possible to say when work on the scheme is likely to start.

Mr. Calleary: Will it be five years?

Mr. Donnellan: If the Deputy's Party was in office it would be 15 years.

Mr. Calleary: The Parliamentary Secretary's Party will be the loser.

Mr. Casey: asked the Minister for Local Government if he will state the present position regarding the proposed increase in pensions for retired officers and servants of local authorities.

Minister for the Gaeltacht (Mr. Lindsay) (for the Minister for Local Government): The text of the Pensions (Increase) Bill, 1956, which authorises increases in both State and local authority pensions is, I understand, on the point of being circulated. Until the precise provisions were settled I was not in a position to advise local authorities on the lines on which it is proposed that local pensions may be increased. I am now in a position to do this and shall do so without delay.

[801]Mr. Kyne: asked the Minister for Local Government whether he is aware that the majority of lorries now in use have a prescribed speed of not less than 40 miles an hour in high gear, while under the present regulations it is forbidden to drive a lorry faster than 25 miles an hour; and whether, pending the enactment of the proposed amending legislation, he will make an Order under the Road Traffic Act, 1933, increasing the speed limit to 40 miles an hour.

Mr. Lindsay: The variation of an ordinary speed limit under the Road Traffic Act, 1933, requires the approval of each House of the Oireachtas. The whole question of ordinary speed limits has been reviewed and will be subject of a proposal in the forthcoming Road Traffic Bill. I do not think it would be appropriate to deal with the matter piecemeal in the meantime.

D'fhiafraigh

Gearóid Mac Pharthaláin: den Aire Rialtais Aitiúil an bhfuil deontais faoi leith dá leithleasú i mbliana as an Ród-Chiste den tsaghas a híoctaí roimhe seo arna moladh ag Oifig na Gaeltachta agus na gCeantar gCúng ar mhaithe le bóithre cuartaíochta sa nGaeltacht; agus, má tá, an abróidh sé cé mhéad atá ceaptha do gach comhairle chontae faoi seach a bhfuil an t-airgead seo ag dul dóibh.

Pádraig Mac Loingsigh: Tá scéim na mBóthar Cuartaíochta sa Ghaeltacht agus sna gCeantair gCúng, a riartar i gcomhairle le hOifig na Gaeltachta agus na gCeantair gCúng, ag dul ar aghaidh i mbliana agus tá ceithre céad míle púnt tugtha i ndeontaisí ón Ród-Chiste dos na húdaráis áitiúla atá páirteach sa scéim.

Tá an freagra don dara chuid den cheist seo i bhfuirm tábla agus led' chead, a Cheann Comhairle, cuirfear ar fáil é leis an Tuarascáil Oifigiúil.

'Sé seo an tábla:—

[802] SCÉIM na mBóthar Cuartaíochta sa Ghaeltacht agus sna gCeantair gCúng. Deontaisí i leith na bliana 1956-57.

Comhairle Chontae	Deontas
	£
Cabhán	10,000
An Clár	35,000
Corcaigh	55,000
Dún na nGall	55,000
Gaillimh	55,000
Ciarraí	55,000
Liathdrom	25,000
Muigheó	55,000
Ros Comáin	25,000
Sligeach	25,000
Portláirge	5,000

Mr. Briscoe: asked the Minister for Local Government if he will state the amount allocated in the current financial year to the Dublin Corporation for the purpose of providing loans under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government (Mr. Spring): The Minister for Finance has agreed to make advances from the Local Loans Fund up to a total of £1,000,000 available to the Dublin Corporation for expenditure in the current financial year for the purpose mentioned by the Deputy. This is part of an overall allocation of £4,000,000 for the Corporation's capital requirements in the current financial year. The Corporation have also been informed that a further similar overall allocation of £4,000,000 will be made available in the next financial year.

Mr. Lahiffe: asked the Minister for Local Government whether he has received from the Galway County Council an application for a Bridge Order in respect of the erection of a bridge at Derrywee, near Gort, County Galway, and, if so, if he will state the date of the application and the text of his reply.

Mr. Spring: An application by Galway County Council for a Bridge Order under Part IV of the Local Government Act, 1946, for the construction of a bridge at Derrywee, County Galway, was received on 18th February last. A letter indicating the [803] general consideration that has been given to the application will issue to the Council in the near future.

Mr. Lahiffe: asked the Minister for Local Government if he has received from the Galway County Council an application for sanction for the extension of the sewerage system at Gort, Loughrea and Headford, County Galway, and if he will state the text of his reply.

Mr. Spring: Plans involving sewerage extensions in connection with the installation of sanitation services in cottages at Gort, Loughrea and Headford were submitted to my Department for approval. As the reply which issued on the 24th July last contains observations on various technical aspects and is rather lengthy, I am arranging to have a copy transmitted to the Deputy.

Mr. P. Brennan: asked the Minister for Local Government why sanction has not yet been given in respect of the tender submitted by the Wicklow County Council for the erection of seven cottages in Glenmalure.

Mr. Spring: The local authority have been asked for their considered views on the housing needs position in Glenmalure. When these are received there will be no avoidable delay in issuing a decision on their proposal to accept a tender for the erection of seven cottages.

Mr. P. Brennan: Is it not a fact that the local authority submitted their views when submitting a tender for sanction?

Mr. Spring: Wicklow County Council have experienced difficulty in some cases in letting cottages to qualified applicants, and, as the Glenmalure site is in a rather remote area, it was decided, before making a decision on the tender proposal, to verify that a definite need exists for each of the seven cottages.

Mr. P. Brennan: Further arising [804] from the reply, it should be pointed out that certain cottages have been erected in remote areas. I should like to bring to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary the fact that this is an area where there is a large forest centre and where there is need for additional houses.

An Ceann Comhairle: Would the Deputy please ask a question?

Mr. MacEntee: Is it the contention of the Parliamentary Secretary that people living in remote areas are not to be decently housed?

Mr. Spring: The question is one of getting tenants.

Mr. P. Brennan: asked the Minister for Local Government why sanction has not been given in respect of the tender submitted by the Wicklow County Council for the erection of six houses in Blessington.

Mr. Spring: The local authority were requested by letter of 19th ultimo to furnish details of the family circumstances and present housing conditions of the prospective tenants of the proposed six houses in Blessington. When this information is furnished, their proposal to accept a tender for the houses will be considered further.

Mr. P. Brennan: Is it not a fact that when submitting the tender for sanction the county council gave full details of the conditions under which the applicants were living and that this is just delayed action?

Mr. Spring: The local authórity submitted proposals for 14 houses. They reduced that by a certain number and again reduced it to six. We are asking for a definite figure of the number required.

Mr. P. Brennan: The number required is six.

Mr. Spring: We have asked the local authority officials to make that definite.

Mr. P. Brennan: They have made it definite.

[805]Mr. Cunningham: asked the Minister for Local Government if he will state the reason for the reduction in the new housing grant for which Certificate of Approval No. 62330 was issued.

Mr. Spring: New house grants which have been paid are not recorded by reference to the number of the Certificate of Approval. If the Deputy supplies the name and address of the applicant I shall have the required information sent to him.

Mr. Cunningham: asked the Minister for Local Government why he has not yet given his sanction in respect of tenders submitted by the Donegal County Council for 43 specific instance cottages.

Mr. Spring: Doubts as to their eligibility for and need of rehousing exist in respect of a number of the applicants for whom the Donegal County Council propose to erect these cottages. I am in communication with the local authority on this aspect of the matter and when the position has been clarified there will be no avoidable delay in issuing a decision on their proposals.

Mr. Cunningham: Would the Parliamentary Secretary say what is the nature of its communication from the local authority?

Mr. Spring: Proposals by Donegal County Council to accept tenders for a total of 54 cottages were received in the Department between the 14th May, 1956, and the 17th of October, 1956. Subsequent correspondence elicited the fact that some of the applicants are small farmers and, as such, do not appear to be appropriate cases for rehousing under the Labourers Acts. A further three applicants are reported by officers of the local authorities to be living in fit houses at present and their need for rehousing is not apparent. In another case, the resiting of a cottage in a position which may obviate the need for constructing a costly access road is to be considered by the local authority. [806] Clarification of the need in a few other cases has also been requested and, finally, the local authority is to examine the feasibility of repairing the existing houses of some of the applicants. The local authority were asked by letter of the 5th November for their observations on the foregoing matters.

Mr. Cunningham: It is quite evident from the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary that he has got full information from the local authority.

Mr. Sweetman: Would the Deputy ask the supplementary question he was prompted to ask by Deputy MacEntee.

Mr. Cunningham: I can ask my own questions.

Mr. Sweetman: I saw Deputy MacEntee.

Mr. O'Sullivan: We all saw him.

Mr. Cunningham: It is quite evident from the information with which I have been supplied that the Minister got all necessary information. Therefore I would ask why there is such a delay——

Mr. Sweetman: Let Deputy MacEntee prompt him again. The special prompting official.

Mr. J. Brennan: Arising out of the reply——

An Ceann Comhairle: Question No. 32.

Mr. MacEntee: Deputies are entitled to ask supplementary questions and to get proper replies to them. They are entitled to ask further questions where the answer given by the Minister is unsatisfactory.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Chair decides the number of supplementary questions Deputies may ask.

Mr. MacEntee: There was only one supplementary asked on this question.

An Ceann Comhairle: Question No. 32.

Mr. Casey: asked the Minister for Health whether he has received proposals [807] from the South Cork Board of Public Assistance for the appointment of an occupational therapist at St. Mary's Orthopaedic Hospital, Cork, and, if so, whether he intends to sanction such proposals.

Minister for Health (Mr. O'Higgins): I have not received a proposal from the Board of Public Assistance for the South Cork Public Assistance District to appoint an Occupational Therapist at St. Mary's Orthopaedic Hospital. The board has submitted a proposal to introduce Occupational Therapy experimentally in the hospital in the next financial year as no provision has been made in the board's estimate for the current year for this service.

The proposal of the board is under consideration in my Department.

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister for Health if, in view of the great benefit which would result for cancer sufferers and suspected cases in County Kerry, and the saving which would accrue to the ratepayers, he will consider making arrangements for the establishment of a cancer clinic in Tralee or Killarney or, if possible, in both towns.

Mr. O'Higgins: The responsibility for the organisation of a national service for the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of cancer rests with the Cancer Association of Ireland. I shall bring to the notice of the Association, for consideration, the suggestion of the Deputy in regard to the establishment of a special cancer clinic in Tralee or Killarney.

Mr. Palmer: When the Minister does so will he consider having one established in Tralee and one in Killarney?

Mr. O'Higgins: I will bring the matter to the notice of the Cancer Association.

Mr. Kyne: asked the Minister for Health if he will consider issuing a recommendation to local authorities that pensions granted to old I.R.A. men should not be taken into consideraction [808] when assessing the means of applicants for medical cards.

Mr. O'Higgins: While I am in full agreement with the principle that members of the old I.R.A. deserve well of this nation I regret that I cannot see my way to make a recommendation such as is proposed by the Deputy.

Mr. MacEntee: Will the Minister convey his views to the Minister for Finance in relation to the Supplementary Pensions Bill?

D'fhiafraigh

Gearóid Mac Pharthaláin: d'Aire na Gaeltachta an bhfuiltear leis an bhfreagracht sa Dáil i leith Oifig na Gaeltachta agus na gCeantar gCúng d'aistriú chuige.

Pádraig Mac Loingsigh: Tá an scéal á scrúdú agus táthar ag súil go dtabharfar breith air go luath.

D'fhiafraigh

Gearóid Mac Pharthaláin: d'Aire na Gaeltachta an abróidh sé, mar gheall ar Sheirbhisí na Gaeltachta d'aistriú chuige, an mbeidh cúram ar a Roinn i leith límistéir is forleithne ná na toghranna ceantair atá luaite in Ordú na límistéirí Gaeltachta, 1956, agus an mbeidh na ceantair chúnga sceidealta faoina chúram freisin.

Pádraig Mac Loingsigh: Beidh, a mhéid a bhaineann obair Sheirbhísí na Gaeltachta faoi láthair le límistéirí nach bhfuil luaite san Ordú sin. Tá an dara cuid den cheist freagartha agam sa bhfeagra a thug mé don Teachta ar an gceist dheireannach.

Gearóid Mac Pharthaláin: An bhfuil sé le tuigsint ón bfreagra a fuair mé anois nach aireacht don bhFíor-Ghaeltacht atá ann chor ar bith ach aireacht i gcóir na gceanntracha cúnga sceidealta——

An Ceann Comhairle: Ní ceist í sin.

Gearóid Mac Pharthaláin: Táim ag fiafraí den Aire an gceapann sé nach Roinn don Fhíor-Ghaeltacht áta ann ach Aireacht i gcóir na gceanntracha cúnga sceidealta. An gcuimhníonn sé go ndúairt céad Aire na Gaeltachta nach raibh aon chúram air faoi na ceanntracha nach raibh an teanga beo iontu?

[809]Pádraig Mac Loingsigh: Níl Fíor-Ghaeltacht ná Breac-Ghaeltacht ann anois ach Gaeltacht ar fad.

D'fhiafraigh

Gearóid Mac Pharthaláin: d'Aire na Gaeltachta cé mhéad tionscal tuaithe faoi stiúir Sheirbhísí na Gaeltachta atá sna ceantair atá luaite in Ordú na Límistéirí Gaeltachta, 1956, agus cé mhéad acu atá taobh amuigh de na límistéirí sin.

Pádraig Mac Loingsigh: Tá 27 Ionaid de na Tionscail Tuaithe faoi stiúir Sheirbhísí na Gaeltachta ins na ceantair atá luaite in Ordú na Límistéirí Gaeltachta, 1956, agus tá 5 Ionaid taobh amuigh de na ceantair sin.

D'fhiafraigh

Gearóid Mac Pharthaláin: d'Aire na Gaeltachta an bhfuil feidhmeannaigh ceaptha aige a ghníomhós thar a cheann i gceantair áirithe den Ghaeltacht; agus, má tá, an abróidh sé cé na ceantair iad, agus cé hiad na daoine atá ceaptha amhlaidh lena n-aghaidh.

Pádraig Mac Loingsigh: Níl aon fheidhmeannach den tsórt atá i gceist ag an Teachta ceaptha agam go fóill.

[810]Gearóid Mac Pharthaláin: An gceapfaidh an tAire feidhmeannaigh i gcóir an deiscirt, an tuaiscirt agus an oirthir?

Pádraig Mac Loingsigh: Ceapfaidh.

Gearóid Mac Pharthaláin: Caithin a gceapfar iad?

Pádraig Mac Loingsigh: Gan mhoill.

Seán Ó Loingsigh: An abróidh an tAire an bhfuil níos mó oifigeach in Aireacht na Gaeltachta anois ná an bheirt a bhí ann go dtí seo?

Pádraig Mac Loingsigh: Sin ceist eile.

The Taoiseach: On a matter of personal explanation—I would like to reply to a statement that I accused Deputy MacEntee yesterday of telling lies——

Mr. MacEntee: No, “making lies.”

The Taoiseach: I want to assure the Deputy that he is quite mistaken and that what I said was “making noise”.

Mr. MacEntee: I shall accept the Taoiseach's statement unreservedly, but I must say his consonants got a little bit mixed as his pronouncements sometimes do.

The Taoiseach: I would say this, a Cheann Comhairle, if you will allow me, in corroboration of what I say: I think Deputy MacEntee is sufficiently sensitive to know that if I had used those words he would have been up on his feet with a bang.

Mr. MacEntee: No, I would give the Taoiseach time to think it over and to heel-tap.

The Taoiseach: It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 4, 5, 2, 6 and 7.

Mr. de Valera: Might I ask with regard to No. 5, that is the Married Women's Status Bill, 1956, whether the arrangement that was suggested yesterday will stand, that a statement is to be made by the Minister bringing in the Bill and that it will then be adjourned?

The Taoiseach: Yes. The arrangement, as I understood it yesterday, was that the Minister would make a statement, the Attorney-General a supplementing statement, and that it would then be adjourned.

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

Mr. Cunningham: When the debate was adjourned I was pointing out that as far as the 1953 Health Act goes, there is a problem there which requires [817] to be straightened out before the proposals enshrined in this Bill can become fully and fairly effective. In regard to the public assistance class under the 1953 Health Act we have an uneven application of that Act in various counties. For instance, in County Donegal 10 per cent. of the population is in receipt of medical cards. That means that in Donegal we have one family in ten eligible to receive the medical benefits of that Act—free medical service. In other counties the percentage is as high as 35 per cent. The situation that the Minister will have to face when this Bill comes into operation is such that a certain number of people, who in some counties are already getting free medical services of all kinds, will be forced to come in under the Voluntary Insurance Scheme, whereas in other counties such persons will not have to avail of this scheme because they are already provided for by the local authority.

That is a situation that will lead to discontent. It is reasonable to expect that a man earning, say, £5 or £6 a week in Donegal who is not in receipt of a medical card will have a grouse when he is forced—not compulsorily, but due to circumstances created by the local authority—to become a voluntary subscriber under this Bill. He will certainly have a grievance when he sees people in other counties in exactly the same circumstances as himself not having to become voluntary subscribers. That is a big problem which the Minister should tackle and the solution of it would create a public which would voluntarily go on to this scheme. I cannot see the scheme having any success when there will be such a large volume of discontented people in various counties throughout the country.

I know the Minister may reply that it is a matter for the local authority, but I think the Minister could devise a certain yardstick for the whole country by which local authorities could be guided so that when this Bill does come into operation the voluntary contributors will start from the same point and you will not have people who should ordinarily be in [818] receipt of medical cards, and consequently of free medical services, being compelled to come in under this Bill.

On the question of setting up a special board to administer the scheme, I think it should be administered by the Department. We had a similar scheme previously, the National Health Insurance, in operation here for a long number of years and it was eventually taken over by the Department of Social Welfare. We may find that after a few years' operation by the board envisaged in this Bill, the Department may eventually have to step in and take over the operation of this scheme. Therefore, it might be a good thing, seeing that the Department have to finance the scheme initially, that they should guide the scheme themselves rather than have it operated by a board. That is all I wish to say, except that I would like the Minister to operate some scheme which would even up the position in regard to medical cards as far as local authorities are concerned.

Mr. J. Brennan: My observations will be very short. In regard to the general trend of the Bill, I am not too happy about having two systems in our medical services. We are reintroducing the greatest curse of medicine: the old social barrier. That is one thing which Deputies hoped would be eradicated from our medical services for good. If anybody will devise a scheme whereby the wealthiest man will not be different in the eyes of the State from the poor man unable to pay his way, such a scheme will meet with the wholehearted approval of the House.

Certain services are entirely under the control of the State in this country and they are quite satisfactory. Take, for instance, primary education. Every child can attend primary school and enjoy the same advantages. The same should apply in medicine. In fact, it is more important that it should apply in the case of medicine. If you have a certain amount of social distinction in education, it only results in certain individuals not getting the same education as others, but in the case of medicine it is very often a [819] question of life and death. I wonder could anybody tell us from statistics the number of people who went to an early grave because they had not the necessary cash to give themselves the treatment and attention they should have got?

This whole question of a means test is all wrong. When sickness overtakes a family, it may be that they are in good circumstances at the time and thus not entitled to a free medical card; but, by the time that family have endured that sickness over an extended period, they are probably in an impoverished condition. They must then humiliate themselves by making an appeal to their local Deputy or county councillor to plead their case in order to have medical assistance finally granted. I think the whole system is only becoming more and more confused and the introduction of a voluntary scheme now will not disentangle what many people regard as the most complex medical scheme in the world. I do not know if anybody to-day really understands whether he or she is entitled to medical services.

An Ceann Comhairle: The administration of the present health legislation is not relevant on this.

Mr. J. Brennan: I suggest that it could be very easily related to it——

An Ceann Comhairle: I do not think so.

Mr. J. Brennan: If one is to discuss the effects of the present proposed voluntary scheme, one must of necessity relate it to the existing medical services in order to discuss it fully.

An Ceann Comhairle: Many did so successfully.

Mr. J. Brennan: Then surely another one would not be any harm. My point is that the present voluntary scheme, however commendable it may be in certain aspects, will do nothing to improve the most complex system we have at present. Until we have a scheme which will cover all individuals alike, we will not have satisfactory medical services in this country. The [820] setting up of a board now to control this scheme is merely divorcing that scheme from the existing one and, as pointed out by Deputy Cunningham, the relationship between the two schemes will eventually make the matter more involved.

I had not the pleasure of hearing the Minister's opening address, but I do not think he outlined in any detail the manner in which the scheme would be operated when it came to the point of actual doctor-patient relations. I take it that the contributions will entitle a person to participate in a scheme which will provide for the payment of fees up to a certain figure, provided a certain number of contributions are credited to that person. That is simply a continuation of the old medical system in this country in which the social barrier is more distinct than in any other State service.

I do not think anybody considers that a commendable feature. If the Minister can satisfy the House that the proposed new scheme will make the operation of the existing scheme less difficult, then I think the new scheme will be recommended by everybody. Deputies know that a good deal of their work at the present time is devoted to unravelling for their constituents the whole question of where they stand with regard to medical fees. If there is any simplification of that system, it will lift a burden from the people, but it will not remove the stigma attached to poorer people who have to seek State assistance compared with a person in a position to pay his way.

The medical profession in this country are only human, and, however creditably they may carry out their duties, it is very difficult to convince anybody that as good attention will be given to a man who has nothing to spend as will be given to a man who is wealthy. That statement is always refuted by the medical profession, but I am still not convinced that that is not the case. I will say nothing further on that point. That is what agitates the minds of those who have to present themselves for medical attention under the schemes we have in operation up to the present. [821] If the Minister can show that his present system is removing that stigma, then the scheme should be acceptable to the entire community; but I am afraid it only tends to magnify those little defects which have created such a feeling in the minds of people sensitive on this question of social distinction in medicine. We all know that people not in a position to pay their way are slow to present themselves for medical attention and very often they do not do so until it is too late. That is a desperate state of affairs and I am afraid there is nothing in this Bill which will remove that rather abominable stigma. That is the main objection I have to this voluntary scheme.

Captain Giles: I should like to compliment the Minister on bringing in this Bill. For years, legislation of all types for the spoon-feeding of everyone has been introduced. Under this Bill, we are giving people an opportunity to fend for themselves. It is the first breath of fresh air in this House for the last 25 years. That is why I compliment the Minister. The people who will benefit under this Bill are the middle-class. The middle-class have carried everybody's burden for a long number of years and under this Bill there is a chance of their getting some relief. The biggest problem facing middle-class people is the payment of hospital bills. Men who should be in hospital for operations and medical treatment postpone such treatment because of the cost, and there is a danger that they may wait too long. With a voluntary health insurance scheme such as this, there will be no need for such postponement of hospitalisation.

This scheme must have a great deal of publicity and it will take some time before it can be a success. Its introduction has brightened the House because hitherto there was too much of the policy of giving something for nothing, to the detriment of the outlook of the people. It would have been a good thing if this legislation had been introduced before the Health Act was brought in. I would suggest that the valuation limit should be £20, because there are many people whose valuation [822] is £20 who have three and four salaries coming into the house; in many cases there is £20 to £40 a week coming into the house whereas people whose valuation is over £50 may be extremely poor and may have very heavy financial burdens. This scheme should have been brought in years ago, on the principle that people should be encouraged to fend for themselves. In regard to much of our legislation, people were under the impression that they were getting something but found that they were fooled because the cost involved was far too high and they got very little.

I hope we will not try to cover too much by this Bill. We should go slow and the policy should be to do what we do well. I know that the middle-class will be quite satisfied by an easement of the position with regard to hospital expenses. If we do nothing more than ease that position for these people, we will have done a great deal. These people can fend for themselves in many other ways and require no help from the State or anyone else. If we provide a good voluntary health scheme for these people, they will be quite happy to fend for themselves after that.

I compliment the Minister on bringing in this scheme, which is long overdue. Such legislation will make our people a better type of people, more manly people. Many people who come under the Health Act will be glad to avail of it and to show that they want to fend for themselves and to be free from any stigma of State aid. The people of this country are a Christian people, a noble people, and they have the right outlook. The best service that we can do for them is to put them in a position to fend for themselves.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins: I should first of all like to express to the House my pleasure at the manner in which this Bill has been received. Generally speaking, Deputies have welcomed the Bill and the slight opposition expressed in the debate came from a Deputy who had not read the Bill, who did not know anything about it and, I think, cared less as to what was in it or what might not be in it. At the [823] same time, I could not help feeling, listening to the speeches made by Deputies, that in some respects there was, perhaps, an understandable lack of knowledge of what it is hoped to achieve by this proposal.

When I had to consider the health problems in this country over two years ago, I found a situation which was chaotic in some respects, but a situation which was potentially good for the people. I have always felt, in relation to health services and, indeed, many other matters, that we are inclined to forget that all of us have a primary responsibility to look after ourselves and to look after our families. I do not say that from any moral point of view. I say it from the ordinary point of view of any decent person who has any regard for himself and his family. If a man has the means to look after his wife when she is sick and his children when they need medical treatment, I am sure he would regard it as a gross impertinence if his neighbours came in and offered to pay the bill. There is, therefore, that point of view which, I think, should colour our approach to matters such as this.

It is understandable and necessary, where there are people who, unfortunately, are unable to provide for themselves, that any Christian State must fill the gap in order to ensure that those in need will get necessary services. I regarded the Health Act of 1953 as being an effort to provide free, or partially free, services for those who were unable to pay. Regarding it in that light, I have made every effort to see that the services promised under that legislation would in fact be made available to our people. But, at all times, I regarded some system of co-operation amongst the people, in the way of insurance, as being equally necessary with legislation to help those in need.

I would not regard voluntary health insurance as being in any way an alternative to some form of State assistance for needy people, but I would regard the mere provision of State assistance for needy people without something such as we are proposing [824] here as being a very incomplete way of facing up to these matters. I felt, therefore, that, once steps had been taken to provide for those in need, then we should proceed with a measure such as this to provide for other sections of the people who have sufficient means to pay something towards their health expenses but who would be unable to pay all if a sudden sickness or illness came upon them.

A suggestion has been made—I think it was by Deputy McQuillan—that the proper expansion of existing services should be along the lines of providing a system of State medicine here. May I express the hope—and I mean this sincerely—that here in Ireland we will cease to ape other countries? May I express the hope that we will try more consistently to bring about an Irish solution to our own problems without seeking merely to apply here something they have done successfully or otherwise elsewhere?

To introduce here a system of State medicine would be, leaving aside the question of cost, a very simple way of providing for the needs of those sections I have mentioned in introducing this Bill. It would be the simple way of doing it. It would cost money, but so far as the actual legislation is concerned, there would be no trouble about it at all—a simple amendment to the Health Act of 1953 and there it is. But to do that would, in my opinion, be to belittle the people of this country. It would be, in effect, saying to what I believe to be the majority of our people that they were going to have their own natural obligations fulfilled by their neighbours through taxation and that henceforth they had no responsibility for the medical treatment and care of themselves and their families. That, I think, would be quite contrary to our ideals, our traditions and our principles and certainly I feel it would not be a proposal that should be entertained by any Irish legislature.

Accordingly, this idea of voluntary health insurance is not intended to be in the way of a subsidised service for any person who takes out this insurance. It is intended to be insurance and nothing else. It will not and [825] should not cost the taxpayer anything. There may be some slight reflection to be made later on with regard to maternity services for the reasons I have explained in introducing the Bill, but, so far as the broad cover aimed at under this scheme is concerned, there will definitely be no subsidy whatsoever. There are already people suggesting that here and elsewhere the taxpayer should be asked to contribute. I do not believe he should. I think it is quite possible under this scheme as it operates to get people by co-operation under insurance to provide in a simple and easy way the necessary cover for themselves.

I know it is easy to say that the premiums suggested in the advisory report are too high. I would like to remind Deputies—and I am not to be taken as saying these are the premiums that the insurance body will eventually offer—I do not know; that will be a matter for themselves—that the advisory body in its report suggested certain premiums for the cover they regarded as necessary. The highest premium for a married couple with four or more children is £15 per year. To any of us £15 is a sizable amount if we have to produce it quite suddenly, but, remembering that it is payment we are asked to make for the discharge of the very definite responsibility we have towards the health of ourselves and our family, I do not think it is too high. It means two packets of cigarettes or a few bottles of stout in a week. It means something less than 6/- each week to meet what is one's responsibility to look after the health and welfare of one's family.

I do not believe that there are any large sections of our people who can afford to pay something who would regard a policy with a maximum premium of £15 per year as being such a crushing burden that they would have nothing to do with it and would rather throw themselves on the charity of their neighbours to have their medical expenses and other necessary services provided for them. The £15 per year, which is the highest premium, represents the gross premium. As Deputies will recall, in, I think, the Finance Act of last year, an important concession [826] in relation to income-tax was made available to any person paying premiums for health insurance and the net premium might work out at something around £12 or so, which would be the highest premium, on the Report of the Advisory Body, that would be chargeable for this type of insurance.

Deputies have asked, not unreasonably, what kind of cover will be provided by the policy when it is offered. Again, it is not possible to answer that question with accuracy at this stage, but under the Bill the insurance body will be directed, will have a statutory obligation in this respect, to carry out a scheme of voluntary health insurance for defraying to such extent as may be specified by regulations the cost to persons paying subscriptions and to dependents of such persons of such medical, surgical, hospital and other health services as may be specified by the Minister.

The purpose of that section and the object sought to be achieved is that regulations, which I or the Minister for Health will make, will contain a certain minimum cover along the lines of the cover set out in the Advisory Body's report, which is a pretty extensive and comprehensive cover. The benefit rates which the Advisory Body suggested provide for a payment up to £7 per week for a maximum period of ten weeks in respect of hospital and nursing-home charges. It provides, in effect, for full cover for surgical and medical fees. It provides for payment up to three guineas per X-ray. It provides cover for pathological and bacteriological services. It provides cover in respect of specialist consultations, in respect of physiotherapy for in-patients in a hospital and for various other services of a specialist kind provided for in-patients. It also provides a limited cover up to £5 in any year for drugs and medicines for in-patients in hospitals. It provides cover for medical and surgical appliances up to two-thirds of the cost, and so forth.

That is a pretty general comprehensive form of cover for any subscriber. In all probability, the regulations which I would make under Section 4 of this Bill would impose on the insurance body a statutory obligation to [827] offer a policy to the public which would contain at least these benefits and this cover. Of course, it is understood that the insurance body may themselves say: “We will regard that as our minimum cover but we will also offer a more expensive policy to persons who might be willing to pay more.” Quite a number of the present prudential associations engaged in health insurance have, in fact, quite a number of policies which they offer at varying rates of premium. Under the Bill power is given to the insurance body to offer a choice of policies to the public provided they have a minimum policy with the minimum benefits that will be prescribed by regulations.

Some Deputies rather thought that this scheme was designed solely for the higher income group. May I emphasise that that is not so? In fact, I should be profoundly disappointed if a number of persons now entitled to health services under existing legislation did not decide to avail themselves of this insurance. Deputies will appreciate that, under the Health Act, 1953, particularly in our country, it was not possible to arrive at a standard of means which would ensure that you were helping only those who, in fact, needed help. A farmer with a £50 valuation in one part of Ireland might be a comparatively poor man while, in another part of Ireland, he might justly be regarded as a rancher. That, itself, in the county economies, has had the unexpected and, I think, undesired result that a number of persons who could well pay their way do now, in fact, get free, or partially free, services. I hope that many such people who now have available to them a cheap form of health insurance will decide to avail of it and will be encouraged to do so.

I do not want to go into any great detail but I mentioned that the cover suggested by the Advisory Body for hospital and maintenance charges was a cover of up to £7 per week. At present, if an eligible person under the Health Act exercises a choice of hospital—in other words, if he goes to a hospital which he selects himself or if [828] he does not go into the public ward of the hospital to which he is sent but goes instead into a semi-private or private room—the health authority can contribute a sum of only four guineas per week in respect of his maintenance in the hospital of his choice or in the private or semi-private room. In addition, the health authority cannot pay any medical fees. Such a Health Act patient, going to a semi-private or private room in a hospital, gets nothing more than four guineas per week. If, however, he decides to avail of health insurance, he will get, under the suggestion here, a contribution of £7 per week in respect of his hospital bill and full cover for surgical and medical fees. There is quite a definite attraction, therefore, to those who can afford to pay something to avail of health insurance and, if they do so, then the burden on the ratepayers and taxpayers will be reduced to some degree.

I should like to make it clear that, while the premiums that will be offered must be such as to make this insurance scheme a solvent one, nevertheles, every effort will be made—because this is a purely voluntary scheme—to make the premium as popular and as attractive as possible. That is done on the clear understanding that there will be no means test or means limit or anything in relation to means which entitle or disentitle a person to avail of this scheme. It is open to everyone, provided they are able to pay a premium which, with other premiums, will meet the total call on the funds but which will contain no element of profit for the board running the scheme.

I should just like to emphasise that. I know that certain British prudential associations and insurance bodies have for some time been engaged upon health insurance work. They have offered different policies to the people of Britain and the people of the North of Ireland. It is notable that even in a land operating a full system of State medicine these health insurance bodies still find thousands of people who prefer to make their own arrangements.

At least one of these associations offered a policy in this country some four years ago or so. In doing so, they [829] offended the provisions of our insurance legislation. They were not entitled to operate here, but many people have regard to the size of the premiums which this body offered when they were seeking business here and the premiums are very much lower indeed than the premiums suggested by the advisory body.

I would, however, express my belief that if these British associations had, in fact, been entitled to operate in this country they would have very quickly become insolvent because the size of their premiums was based on the particular circumstances in Great Britain and on the fact that there is a comprehensive State health service which allows a certain amount of selectivity with regard to whether a person would call upon the insurance fund or not and, of course, in addition, the families in Britain are just half the size of our families here.

The rate of fertility amongst married women in this country is particularly high. According to figures in recent years, the number of births per 1,000 women of child-bearing age was 254 compared with 111 in Britain. That means that the average size of our families is more than twice that of British families. Accordingly, I think that these low premiums which are possible in England, where they have a full State scheme already, where families are small and where it is possible to get large groups of population in dense areas, could not under any circumstances apply here. In any event, I only mention that because, when I say that the premiums offered here will be as attractive as possible, they cannot at the same time be competitive with the premiums suggested or on offer from similar bodies outside this country.

Some Deputies expressed concern as to the necessity for providing this new body with what, in effect, may be almost a monopoly. Frankly, I could sympathise with the Deputies who expressed such a doubt. My original concern, as will appear from the Bill as drafted now, was to provide that this body should be able to meet any competition from any other groups or syndicates that might wish to engage [830] in this business. I found, however, on closer study of the matter, there was a danger that certain groups outside the country who were still entitled under our Insurance Act of 1936 to operate here, might, in fact, decide to engage in such health insurance business.

They could do so for a time, but during that time they could so operate a policy that this new board would find itself unable to compete. The result might mean the disappearance of any home-controlled insurance body that would have to provide this form of insurance. In the circumstances, I felt it was wiser to provide for this new body what, in effect, has been frequently done in the past for other similar bodies, a certain amount of protection, particularly in the early stage to enable it to get under way.

That is all I care to say in closing the debate. I could not attempt to deal with the many particular points raised by Deputies. I should just like to emphasise that this legislation is designed to provide the machinery to operate a scheme of health insurance. The body that will be established under this legislation will be guided largely, I have no doubt, by the very detailed report submitted to me by the advisory body established last year. I should like to avail of the opportunity in Dáil Eireann to express my gratitude and the gratitude of my colleagues to all members of that advisory body for the excellent work they did. The report itself was submitted very expeditiously. It is a well-documented report. It contains interesting information and illustrates considerable study and considerable work by everybody associated with it and I would like to express my gratitude, and that of my colleagues, to everybody who helped to compile it. The board will have due regard to it when it proceeds to offer its policy to the public.

In conclusion, I should like to repeat what I said in my opening statement. This idea of health insurance is a voluntary one. It cannot operate and it cannot succeed unless it is backed by a worthwhile public opinion. That public opinion can only be moulded and formed if people realise that they [831] have an obligation and a responsibility to stand on their own feet and to fend and provide for themselves. The State has an obligation to look after those who need help and, where necessary, to provide the means for people, even with money, to meet unexpected hazards of ill-health. The purpose of the State, in my opinion, should be to supplement, and not supplant, individual effort. If that is understood by the public generally, if more and more of us realise that we have a responsibility ourselves which we cannot shelve, shirk, or delegate, and that our responsibility must be discharged by our own efforts, then, with health insurance, an easy means is provided to meet that responsibility. If people realise that, I have no doubt that this scheme will eventually be a success.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 29th November, 1956.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Everett): I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The Bill proposes to consolidate and amend the law as to married women. It is, in fact, a codification of all the law concerning married women except the law relating to income-tax and intestacy, though in one small respect the law as to intestacy is being changed.

The origin of the Bill will be found in Section 2 of the Law of Torts (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1941, which was a Private Members' Bill introduced by the present Taoiseach and supported by the present Attorney-General. The other proposals in that Bill eventually found their way into the Tortfeasors Act, 1951. When the preliminary drafts of the Married Women's Status Bill, 1954, which was designed as an amending Bill, were being considered, it was found that the statutory provisions relating to married women [832] were contained in as many as 26 separate enactments dating from 1834. We considered that it would be preferable to consolidate as well as to amend the law so that all legal provisions relating to the status of married women would be available in a modern Act of the Oireachtas. The present Bill is the result.

To put it shortly, I may say that the object of the Bill is to put married women in the same legal position as single women and men. In other words, it means to get rid once and for all of the disabilities under which married women at present suffer, not alone in regard to their property but also in regard to their ordinary rights in contract and tort.

In order that the House may appreciate exactly what is contained in the Bill, I propose to deal fairly briefly with the history of married women under the law. At common law, a married woman's existence was treated as being merged in that of her husband. Husband and wife were one person in the eyes of the law. A married woman could not own any property, and all her property became either absolutely or temporarily the property of her husband, and it did not matter whether the property was hers at the time of the marriage or was acquired thereafter. Personal property became the husband's absolutely and, even if the wife earned money by her own labours, the husband could take it as his own. A wife's lands, apart from leaseholds, became her husband's temporarily. He could enjoy the rents and profits during marriage and, after her death, if there were children capable of inheriting, he became entitled to an estate (called tenancy by the curtesy) for the remainder of his own life. Leaseholds also became the husband's and he might dispose of them at any time during marriage, though, if his wife survived him and he had not already disposed of them, they became hers absolutely on the husband's death. The theory of the law was that, in consideration of the husband's undertaking to support and maintain his wife, he became entitled to her property. A married woman could not [833] make a contract at law, and if she committed a tort or private wrong during the marriage her husband could be made liable for it, and he could also be made liable for her antenuptial contracts, debts and torts. She could not make a will of the real estate so as to deprive her husband of his estate by the curtesy or her heir-at-law of his inheritance; and, if she made a will of personal estate, it could only be enforced with her husband's consent.

In order to give some relief to married women from the rigours of the common law, the Court of Chancery, through the institution of the trust, devised the doctrine of separate use. When the legal interest in land was transferred to trustees to be dealt with for the benefit of a married woman, the Court of Chancery compelled the trustees to carry out the trust. And it was in this way that was evolved what is still known as a married woman's separate property. In time, property held to the separate use of a married woman was protected even without the intervention of trustees, the law of equity, as administered in the Chancery Court, making the husband trustee. There was, however, still the danger that the husband might influence his wife to dispose of the property or the income therefrom for his benefit. Accordingly, towards the end of the 18th century, a provision was devised by the Chancery Court called the restraint on anticipation, and this still survives for married women fortunate enough to have marriage settlements. In the case of a married woman, and only in her case, it is possible by inserting the appropriate clause in the settlement or will to prevent her, during her marriage, from disposing of or charging by way of anticipation, the corpus of her separate property (that is, the fund or capital itself) or the income accruing from it or both. The effect of this clause is not only to protect the property of a married woman from her husband but also to protect it from her creditors, or rather to protect her from her creditors. The creditors cannot enforce a judgment against property subject to a restraint either by having the capital seized or by attaching [834] the income before it comes into her hands.

By 1870, many married women were earning money and acquiring property and the view was widely held that what they acquired should not automatically pass to their husbands. The institution of separate property was peculiar to well-off people, so that the law continued to impose hardship on the majority of married women. In order to remedy the situation, the Married Women's Property Act of 1870 was passed, and this Act was later superseded by the Married Women's Property Act, 1882. The reforms which are now to be found in the Married Women's Property Acts, 1882 to 1907, unfortunately preserved the idea of separate property. Instead of doing the logical thing and providing that a woman on marriage should not change her status in regard to capacity to contract, to hold and dispose of property and to sue and be sued, the Legislature took over the existing equitable doctrine of separate property, and attached to it many of the qualities given it in Equity. The legislation was concerned with the property of a married woman and not with her status as a person. The existing law remained unaltered in important respects and the new law, being complicated, resulted in much difficult litigation.

Under the 1882 Act, as amended, it is provided that every married woman shall be capable of acquiring, holding and disposing, by will or otherwise, of any real or personal property in the same way as if she were a single woman: she is capable of entering into and making herself liable, in respect and to the extent of her separate property, on any contract: she is capable of suing and being sued in contract and in tort as if she were a single woman, and her husband need not be joined with her as plaintiff or defendant: and she may hold, as her separate property, all property belonging to her, including any money earned by her in any trade, profession or occupation. A married woman may be made a bankrupt where she trades with her separate estate separately from her [835] husband, but otherwise she cannot be made bankrupt. A husband is liable for his wife's antenuptial debts, contracts and torts to the extent of all property obtained through his wife; and he may be sued jointly with her in respect of such debts, contracts and torts. Finally, the Act of 1882 preserves restraint upon anticipation. Despite the provisions of the Act, it has been held that a husband is still liable for his wife's torts, and it has also been held that a married woman cannot be committed to prison for the non-payment of a debt in respect of which judgment has been obtained against her.

I now come to the main proposals in the Bill. The idea of separate property is being abolished in Section 2, and a married woman will be in the same position as a single woman, in so far as acquiring and disposing of property and suing and being sued are concerned. She will, in addition, be subject to the bankruptcy laws in all respects, as if she were unmarried.

It is important to note that by reason of sub-section (2) of Section 2, she may sue her husband in tort and he may likewise sue her. At present, a married woman cannot sue her husband in tort except for the protection of her separate property, and a husband cannot sue his wife in tort at all even for the protection of his property. We have given this matter the most careful consideration, and we are of opinion that, in view of the difficult questions which often arise at present, it is far better to allow one spouse to sue the other in tort. A wife can have her husband prosecuted criminally at the moment for an assault, so that no real objection arises on the score that allowing her to sue him civilly would give rise to objectionable actions. She can also sue him for a tort committed before marriage. Where a wife and child are injured by the negligence of the husband and a third party, the wife may succeed against the third party, but the third party cannot recover contribution from the husband under the Tortfeasors Act, 1951, as the husband is not a [836] tortfeasor in so far as his wife is concerned. If, however, the child succeeds against the third party, there is nothing to prevent that third party obtaining contribution from the husband, because a child can sue his father for negligence. Further, a man cannot protect his wife under an accident insurance policy under the Road Traffic Act, because he is not liable to her in tort. It has been suggested that the law may possibly be otherwise, but we are advised that this is more than doubtful in this country at all events.

Section 6 of the Bill proposes to abolish restraint on anticipation, no matter when arising. Restraint is in modern circumstances an outmoded device. It was originally designed to protect a married woman against her husband, and is the only instance known to the law where a person is prevented from dealing with his or her own property as he or she so desires. The device allows creditors to be defrauded in many instances, as restrained property cannot be attached for the payment of debts. A married woman for genuine causes, such as for the better education of her children or the payment of medical expenses, may have good reason for seeking to capitalise income subject to restraint. She may also want a little capital for her own or her husband's business. Admittedly, she can go to the High Court and have the restraint lifted, but the court, under Section 7 of the Conveyancing Act, 1911, has a discretion in the matter, and the tendency has been to interpret this discretion narrowly. Apart from this, going to the court costs money. In recent times, the real value of fixed incomes has declined very much and taxation is more severe than it used be, so that it is very often better to allow a woman to dispose of her restrained property and put the proceeds to whatever purposes she thinks best.

Section 11 will abolish a husband's liability for his wife's torts, contracts and debts, and the section will put in statutory form the rule of law that he is liable for contracts made by her for necessaries. We think that it is wrong in principle that a husband should be responsible for his wife's [837] obligations and wrongs no matter when they arise, except in so far, of course, as she is by law deemed to act as his agent in purchasing such things as food and clothing.

Before I leave the specific provisions of the Bill, I should like to refer to Section 8. This section which re-enacts Section 11 of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, allows a wife, husband or child to secure the benefits of a life insurance policy effected by the husband or wife. The provision in the 1882 Act allows for an exception to the general rule of law that a third party cannot sue on a contract made between two other parties, although that contract is expressed to be for the benefit of the third party. We are at present examining an amendment which will extend Section 8 of the Bill to cover endowment and education policies effected by a man or his wife for the benefit of the other or for the benefit of their children. The law at present does not cover such policies. The amendment, which we hope to bring in on Committee Stage, will not alone cover these policies but will also do away with the trust mechanism contained in the existing law and also in Section 8 of the Bill. On reconsideration, we see no reason why a life, endowment or education policy, taken out by one spouse and expressed to be for the benefit of the other or of a child, may not be enforced by the person named in the policy as a beneficiary. We also see no reason why the same rule should apply in the case of an ordinary contract, and we will have a second amendment to cover this case as well. Both amendments will make what we think are very desirable changes in the law.

I should like to refer to two matters not dealt with in the Bill. First of all there is the question of income-tax. Under the Income Tax Act, 1918, a husband is responsible for his wife's income-tax, though, of course, he gets the benefit of a marriage allowance. A husband or wife may, however, apply for separate assessment. The existing law does not cause any hardship and we do not propose to change it.

Secondly, I should like to point out [838] that the Bill does not provide for the inheritance rights of a husband or wife, except in one small respect, to which I shall come in a moment. As Deputies will be aware, a husband's rights to the property of his wife, who dies intestate, are much better than those of a wife whose husband dies intestate, although the position of the wife, where there are no children, has been considerably improved by the Intestates' Estates Act, 1954. However, the proper place to correct the present differences between a widower's rights and a widow's rights is in an Administration of Estates Bill, and we have a comprehensive Bill under consideration to modernise the whole law as to intestacy. But before we introduce this Bill, we propose to have a preliminary short Bill, which will clear the way and, in addition, make some pressing technical changes as regards the devolution of property. The one respect in which we are changing the law of inheritance in the Bill may not be clear except by a careful examination of the Schedule of Repeals.

The Bill proposes to repeal the Irish Married Women's Property Act, 1865. Under that Act, where a woman is legally separated from her husband, any property she acquires while the separation continues devolves, if she dies intestate, as if her husband were then dead. In other words, he has no rights to it. There is no corresponding provision in the law in regard to the property (acquired after separation) of the legally separated husband who dies intestate. At the present day, when the property rights of a married woman are immensely better than they were a century ago, there appears to us to be no logical reason why the existing distinction should be maintained. Under the Bill, both husband and wife will have the same rights on intestacy whether or not there is a separation, and we think that this is as it should be. After all, a separated wife is now quite free to make a will and dispose of her property as she likes.

I recommend the Bill to the House. It will make a number of desirable amendments in the law, and it will give the complete law in a short [839] modern enactment. We admit that some of the changes, such as that abolishing restraint on anticipation, will affect only a limited number of married women, but by and large the Bill provides for long-needed changes in our law. I have attempted to discuss these changes in a very general way. My colleague, the Attorney General, will, however, explain the legal aspects of them in more detail.

Deputies will notice that the Bill is accompanied by explanatory sidenotes. These notes show where the existing law is being consolidated and where the proposed reforms are being effected. We trust that this practice, which we intend to follow in all our law reform Bills, will be of assistance to those who desire to study these Bills in more detail.

In conclusion, I should like to thank those persons outside the Public Service, who have been of such assistance to us in framing the provisions of the Bill. We can only hope that we have done what we set out to do, namely, to give to our married partners what has always been their due. It may be argued that in some ways, such as under the bankruptcy laws, they will be worse off, but I am sure that, in accepting their new rights, they will gladly accept their new responsibilities as well.

Mr. de Valera: There has been an agreement that, after the introductory statement by the Minister, the debate be adjourned.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: It was agreed, I believe, that following a statement by the Attorney-General, further debate would be adjourned for a week.

Mr. de Valera: Would it be possible to give us a further week? I regard this as a very important Bill and should like to have it thoroughly examined.

Mr. Everett: We could arrange to take it this day fortnight.

Attorney-General (Mr. McGilligan): I trust that what I am about to say [840] will not appear as in the nature of a lecture on what are fairly involved and technical aspects of the law. I think it is necessary, however, to deal in detail with some of the provisions of this Bill so that I may give the House what assistance I can in examining these provisions. The present law as to married women has been in existence now more or less unchanged since 1882, and it may well be asked why, if it has caused no serious outcry in all that period of time, it is necessary to have a Bill to deal with it at all.

In answer to this, I must say, first of all, that the present law is only to be found scattered through as many as 26 statutes, some of which are over 100 years old. Deputies will notice in the Schedule of Repeals that the Bill proposes to get rid completely of six statutes, a substantial part of a seventh as well as provisions scattered through 19 other statutes. Apart from the statutes, there is the law as contained in various cases which have come before the courts from time to time.

I hope to refer to some of these cases later on. Even if the Bill did not propose any major changes in the law, it would still be justified by the necessity for a consolidating measure where, as in the present case, the law on any subject is to be found only by examining a number of old Acts many of the provisions of which are now obsolete. These old Acts are hard to get at and studying them involves much tedious and unnecessary labour. The Statute of Limitations Bill, for instance, proposes to consolidate and amend the statutes governing the law as to the limitation of actions and we have now this Bill governing the law as to married women. Recently we had a Gaming and Lotteries Act repealing a number of statutes going back to the 17th century. It is scarcely open to argument that we should have Acts of our own saying what is the law on various subjects. The necessity for this was recognised some time ago when we set up the Statute Law Reform and Consolidation Office in charge of a director.

As well as the need for modern Acts consolidating the law, there are a [841] number of difficulties concerned with the various branches of the law which require reform. Unfortunately, many of the reforms have been left too long outstanding, and we are considerably behind our friends in Britain and in the Six Counties in these matters as well as being behind our friends in the various British Dominions and in the United States of America.

In one way this has the advantage that we have been able to look at the reforms effected in these countries to see how far and in what way we ought to adopt them, and, where particular reforms have been carried out, we are able to see how they have worked out in practice. We are not by any means confined to the example of Britain and the Six Counties. Deputies will remember that in the Fatal Injuries Act we adopted a provision in regard to persons in loco parentis which is to be found in the law of Canada. And in the present Bill there is a proposal, which I shall deal with later, and which will provide a reform at present peculiar to the law of the State of New York.

In dealing with these problems, our object has been to reform the law so that it will be in accord with our own times and our own system of society and in order that we will no longer be the slaves of rules which were made or evolved to suit other ages and a different type of social structure. Jurisprudence must move with the times.

The law as to married women comes down to us, as the Minister for Justice has explained, from a time when wives had no rights. Gradually they obtained rights through the Court of Chancery, which attempted to ease the rigours of the Common Law. Finally, there were enacted the Married Women's Property Acts, 1882 to 1907. Unfortunately, the Act of 1882 only dealt with a married woman in her capacity as a person holding property.

This has resulted in the famous decision of Scott v. Morley, which established in 1887 that the ordinary law as to the enforcement of court orders did not apply to a married woman and that, no matter how much she persisted in not paying her debts, she [842] could not be attached. This decision also settled the form of judgment against a married woman that has been followed ever since. The judgment is not against her personally but against her separate property and is as follows:—

“It is adjudged that the plaintiff do recover £x and costs, to be taxed against the defendant (the married woman), such sums and costs to be payable out of her separate property, as hereinafter mentioned, and not otherwise. And it is ordered that execution hereon be limited to the separate property of the defendant (the married woman), not subject to any restriction against anticipation, unless by reason of Section 19 of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, the property shall be liable notwithstanding such restriction.”

It will be seen that the married woman has no personal liability whatsoever. Judgment may only be given against such of her property as is not restrained from anticipation, although since the Married Women's Property Act, 1893, the court is empowered to order payment of costs out of property subject to a restraint. I shall come to restraint later on.

Section 2 (1) of the Bill proposes to change the law completely in regard to a woman's rights and her liability will in future be personal and not proprietary. The section will mean, inter alia, that, if judgment is given against a married woman upon any cause of action whatsoever, whether arising before or during marriage, it will be in exactly the same form as against an unmarried woman or against a man. It is a moot point at the moment as to whether a married woman can sue and be sued for the specific performance of a contract, and this difficulty is being cleared up.

A married woman will be subject to the law of bankruptcy and the law relating to the enforcement of court orders as if she were unmarried. A married woman is not subject to the laws of bankruptcy at present unless she is trading separately from her husband, and judgments may be enforced [843] only against her separate property. The Bankruptcy Act of 1914 (which did not apply to Ireland) provided that a married woman who was a trader was to be subject to the bankruptcy laws, whether or not she was trading separately from her husband, and the same applied in the Six Counties since 1929. Under the Bill it will not matter whether she is a trader or not.

I now come to Section 2 (2) of the Bill which says that sub-section (1) shall apply as between a married woman and her husband in the same way as it applies between her and any other person. The primary object of this provision is to allow one spouse to sue the other in tort. As the Minister explained, a married woman can only sue her husband in tort for the protection of her separate property, and this by reason of Section 12 of the 1882 Act. Surprisingly, a married man has no right to sue his wife for the protection of his property, but this may have been due to an oversight when the 1882 Act was being prepared.

As the Minister pointed out, the difficulty that arises at present generally concerns car accidents. Where a husband and a third party are liable, the third party cannot obtain contribution from the husband if the wife successfully sues the third party. Where the third party is the employer of the husband, it has been argued that he can claim indemnity, but the position is doubtful. A new difficulty will arise if and when we enact a Civil Liability Bill, which is now being examined and which will propose to alter the existing law as to contributory negligence so as to provide that, where two parties are negligent, each will be responsible for the proportion of the damage attributable to his own negligence.

We have considered two other solutions to the problem of the liability of one spouse to the other. Firstly, we examined the question of providing that, for the purposes of a claim to contribution under the Tortfeasors Act, the spouse of the injured party should be deemed to be a tortfeasor [844] liable to the injured party in the same way as if he or she were not married to the injured party. Secondly, we considered the solution adopted in Ontario in 1935 and later by some other Canadian provinces. Under this solution, the negligence of the spouse jointly responsible with the third party is identified as the negligence of the injured spouse.

This solution would, of course, require the amendment of the law of contributory negligence which we propose in our Civil Liability Bill. Otherwise, the injured spouse couldn't recover at all under our existing law of contributory negligence. On balance, we decided that the most logical thing to do was to do what was done in the State of New York in 1937 and allow one spouse to sue the other. It may be objected that such a provision will allow for collusion in actions designed to get money from insurance companies, but the answer to this is that the collusion would be no greater than that which might arise at present where a child sues his father. Anyway, the present law is not based on the necessity for avoiding collusion, and I doubt very much if collusive actions brought to get money improperly are at all likely to succeed.

A second objection is that the proposed provision might give rise to objectionable actions: but such actions would be no more objectionable than those which can and do at present arise. For instance, there was a case some years ago reported in the Law Reports where a wife obtained an injunction against her husband excluding him from her house on the grounds that she was prejudiced in obtaining lodgers due to his drunkenness, the injunction in practice amounting to a separation.

A wife may sue her husband for an antenuptial tort if a recent decision in England were followed here, and I do not see any reason why it might not. And it would appear that a wife may sue her husband for a tort committed by him after they have been legally separated. We, therefore, do not think that there is much force in the argument about objectionable actions. It could be provided that actions between [845] a husband and wife may be heard in camera at the discretion of the court, and I understand that the Department of Justice will examine this question.

Section 3 of the Bill, allied to Section 2, will get rid of the idea of separate property and I do not think there can be any objection to this.

Section 4 of the Bill has been inserted merely as a precaution in order to negative any possible argument that the effect of the Bill is to interfere with the present powers of a husband and wife to act jointly.

Subsection (1) of Section 5 provides for a small amendment of the law. At present, the rule is that a husband and wife take property “by entireties”, and neither can dispose of any part of the inheritance except with the consent of the other. Where a third person is involved, he takes half and husband and wife take half between them. Under the proposal in the Bill, if land is granted simpliciter to A and his wife, B, and to C, the position in law will be the same as if B were not A's wife. Sub-section (2) of Section 5 removes any doubt there may be about the right of a husband or wife to convey property to the other. Section 50 (1) of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, gave this power of conveyance in respect of “freehold land or a thing in action”. There seems to be some doubt as to whether leaseholds may be conveyed by a husband or wife to the other, and the proposed sub-section is designed to clear up the doubt by referring simply to property. Whether it is still necessary in view of sub-section (2) of Section 2 will be considered between this and Committee Stage.

Section 6 is the restraint on anticipation section. Restraint on anticipation was introduced about 1786 by Lord Chancellor Thurlow in England. At all events, tradition credits him with it. Lord Alvanley followed and recognised its validity, and, finally, the famous Lord Eldon definitely established it. The Bill proposes to abolish the device whether it arises in a will or settlement made before or after the commencement of the new legislation. As this proposal will mean interfering [846] with existing settlements, I propose to say a little on the institution of restraint, although, admittedly, it arises rarely these days in this country.

The device was introduced after the Court of Chancery had invented the doctrine of separate use. A married woman could have separate property, and, in order to protect her against her husband, who might prevail on her to dispose of this property or the income therefrom for his benefit, the Court of Chancery invented this extraordinary provision, which was inserted as a matter of form in every will or settlement that concerned property devised or granted to a married woman or to a woman about to be married or who might be married at a later stage in her life.

During her marriage, the woman cannot dispose of property subject to a restraint, nor can she charge or capitalise the income accruing from such property. Once her husband dies, the restraint ceases and she can do what she likes with the property, but, if she again marries, the restraint is re-imposed on so much of the property as is left. Sometimes, property may be settled so that a married woman has no power to deal with either the corpus or income by way of anticipation; or the corpus may be restrained, leaving the income free; or the income may be restrained, with a power of appointment over the corpus to take effect on the death of the married woman.

After the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, when all property of a married woman became her separate property, the institution of the restraint became very wide indeed. It is specifically preserved by Section 19 of that Act, although it has no validity against debts contracted by the married woman where she makes the settlement containing the restraint herself. This type of settlement is, of course, unusual.

Originally designed in order to protect a married woman against a predatory husband, the institution has now developed so as to be a protection against creditors and in practice a means of defrauding them. Restraint has now long outlived its usefulness and is, in our day, a complete anachronism. [847] It works hardship in cases where it would be for the benefit of the married woman to have the restraint completely lifted. Power to remove the restraint was given to the High Court in Section 39 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881 (now replaced by Section 7 of the Conveyancing Act, 1911) but applications to the High Court involve costs very often out of proportion to the income. Further, the power of the court is purely discretionary and no one can be sure beforehand in any particular case how the discretion will be exercised.

A suggestion to widen this discretionary power was considered, but was rejected as it would mean continuing the disadvantage of the expense of the litigation and would not make for certainty as to what would happen in particular cases. It must be realised that the property, even though restrained, is the married woman's own property. It is not the property of anybody else, and there is in modern circumstances no valid reason why she should have to ask leave of a judge, or anybody for that matter, in order to dispose of it as she so feels like. Restraint cannot be imposed in the case of a man or a single woman. It is not a device which can give a married woman a settled income for life as, when her husband dies, she can sell the income. In the majority of cases, the restraint is imposed purely as a matter of form, being in the precedent book, and a device “originally intended for the wealthy woman was generally adopted by conveyancers for women in very humble circumstances.”

There is little question but that restraint ought to be abolished for the future. In so far as existing settlements are concerned, the proposal in the Bill is in a way retrospective legislation, but so is the provision in the 1911 Conveyancing Act and any man who made a settlement on his daughter made it subject to that provision.

The Court can make binding any particular disposition made by a married woman if it thinks it is for her benefit, though it cannot remove the restraint generally. Still, the interference by the Court is an interference [848] with the wishes of the settlor or testator, that is in so far as any settlor or testator ever wished to bind his daughter in all circumstances. The general opinion is that in the vast majority of cases he did not fully understand what he was doing at all. Further, a knowledgeable woman, who has a marriage settlement with a restraint clause, can lift the clause by deed just before she gets married.

We think that, as circumstances are to-day and particularly in view of the other proposals in the Bill, restraint on anticipation has outlived its usefulness and should be abolished in all cases. It is interesting to note that in England, after restraint was abolished for future cases in 1935, other devices were resorted to but only in a comparatively limited number of cases. This, of course, considerably strengthens the argument that, had the device of a protective trust (which I shall deal with in a moment) and the restraint been available to testators or settlors at an early date, and had their minds been directed to them, they would probably have used neither.

In 1949, when restraint was being finally abolished for all cases in England, it was suggested that the law should substitute for existing restraints the device of a protective trust or a discretionary trust. In the case of a protective trust the beneficiary is entitled to the income until he or she either tries to anticipate it or goes bankrupt; until then the trustees are bound to pay over the whole income. The protective trust was established in England in 1925 by the Trustee Act of that year and is unknown with us. In a discretionary trust, a discretion rests with the trustees throughout as to how they should dispose of the property. We do not favour the substitution of either of these devices for existing restraints, and for the simple reason that they are quite different in essence from the restraint. Where a married woman has restrained property, the property is her own. It is not property she has until the happening of a certain event. If she tries to charge or encumber it, her efforts have no effect on it. In the case of the trust devices or forfeiture [849] clauses the property ceases to be hers at the discretion of the trustees or when the particular event occurs, and goes either to other beneficiaries or is devoted to other purposes.

I have dealt with this question of the abolition of restraint on anticipation at some length not because it is a problem affecting a substantial number of people—which it is not—but because an important matter of principle is involved. We think we are doing what is right and proper for those married women who have restrained property and what those who made the settlements on them would in most cases wish us to do.

I do not imagine we ought to have any sympathy with the case of a woman who is defrauding her creditors by means of the restraint, but we must have sympathy with a woman who is relying on what has now become a very small income in real terms, whereas twenty years ago it represented a sizeable asset, particularly if the husband was not too well off. Two actual cases will illustrate what I mean. In the first, a case which occurred in the last century, a married woman who had property subject to restraint was able to perpetrate the grossest fraud on a bona-fide purchaser for value and the courts could not intervene. In a recent case, cited in the British House of Commons, a woman had property subject to a restraint but was unable to have the restraint lifted in order to raise capital to send her sick husband to Switzerland to recover his health. Under the Bill, cases like these will no longer be able to occur. Admittedly, the property of a married woman may in future be tied up by means of a discretionary trust or a forfeiture clause, but only in the same way as in the case of single girl or a man. Even if it is tied up, it will not be property in which she will have an absolute interest but only property which will be hers until the happening of a certain event. As I have explained, the present position is that an attempt to anticipate or charge the restrained property of a married woman has no effect whatsoever on the property. If, [850] however, the settlement merely contains a forfeiture or other similar provision, an attempt to charge the property or bankruptcy means that the property goes to someone else, and this happens whether or not the woman is single, married or a widow.

Section 7 of the Bill deals with the postponement of a husband's or wife's claims in the case of the bankruptcy of the other. It is not altogether clear why sub-section (1) is not in the 1882 Act (though sub-section (2) is), because the Act does provide that a married woman trading separately from her husband is subject to the bankruptcy laws. In England, the omission was remedied in the Bankruptcy Act, 1914, and in the Six Counties in the Bankruptcy Act, 1929.

I now come to Sections 10 and 11. Section 10 repeats the provision in the 1882 Act that a woman is to be liable for her antenuptial contracts and torts, but it leaves out the restriction that this is only to be to the extent of her separate property. At present, the husband may be sued alone or jointly with her in respect of these contracts and torts, though he may be made liable only to the extent of the property which he shall have acquired or become entitled to “from or through his wife”. Section 11 proposes to abolish the husband's liability not alone for the antenuptial contracts and torts but also for the postnuptial torts. As regards her postnuptial contracts and torts, the position, under Section 1 of the 1882 Act, is that a married woman is capable of contracting to the extent of her separate property and of suing and being sued in contract and tort as if she were a “feme sole”, and her husband need not be joined with her as a plaintiff or defendant. In Equity, the separate estate of a married woman was always liable for her contracts made with reference to it, but a married woman was not liable for her general torts. Despite Section 1 of the 1882 Act, it has been held by the British House of Lords in the famous Edwards v. Porter case in 1925 that the Common Law liability of a husband to be sued jointly with his wife for her postnuptial torts has not been affected. This, in practice, [851] means that a husband is liable for his wife's torts, because there is no provision in the 1882 Act making her separate property primarily liable for such torts as there is in respect of her antenuptial contracts and torts.

The Edwards v. Porter decision, which was a majority decision, has been severely criticised on the ground that the result achieved is against the object and proper construction of the 1882 Act. There was certainly weighty legal opinion on the other side. Be all that as it may, the law as laid down in that case is most certainly not in accord with modern conditions. A husband has never been liable for his wife's postnuptial contracts, except that, at common law, he is liable where she contracts as his agent. She may be an ordinary agent or what is called “an agent of necessity”. The latter type of agency arises where she contracts as an implied agent for necessaries such as food and clothing. I may mention that in these cases regard must be had to her social position and her husband's wealth so that “necessaries” may often mean luxuries.

Section 11 of the Bill proposes, firstly, to abolish completely a husband's liability for his wife's antenuptial contracts and torts: there was a similar provision in the Married Women's Property Act, 1870, but four years later it was modified in an Act of 1874, which rendered the husband again liable to the extent of the assets received or receivable in the right of his wife. The trouble was, I think, that in many cases, if the husband was not liable, nobody was liable; and the Legislature at the time were amazed to discover they had made what was then considered too revolutionary a change. Secondly, Section 11 proposes to abolish the husband's liability for his wife's postnuptial torts. Thirdly, the section puts into statutory form for the first time (here or in Britain) the common law rule regarding the husband's liability for certain of his wife's postnuptial contracts. Finally, sub-section (2) of the section re-enacts that, where alimony has been ordered to be paid under a decree of divorce a mensa et thoro, and has not been paid by the [852] husband, he shall be liable for necessaries supplied to his wife. This is a reenactment of what is a very sensible provision in the Irish Married Women's Property Act of 1865.

The last section of the Bill to which I should like to refer is Section 8. This section re-enacts Section 11 of the 1882 Act and, as the Minister has told you, is an exception to the rule that a third party cannot enforce a contract for his benefit made between two other parties. To this rule there are some exceptions, such as the present one, the case of a contract under seal (requiring, unlike any other contract, no consideration to support it), and the case of a contract under Section 78 of the Road Traffic Act (which allows a person to recover from the delinquent's insurance company where the injury arises in a motor accident). This latter provision does not help the injured wife of a negligent motorist as he has no liability to her because she cannot sue him in tort. I am speaking of the case where she is on the roadside and he is driving the car. Passengers in a car are not, of course, at present compulsorily insured, but it is hoped to rectify this.

The rule against giving rights to third parties has recently come in for an amount of criticism, and it has been argued that the famous dictum of Viscount Haldane in the leading case of Dunlop v. Selfridge in 1915, that “our law knows nothing of a jus quaesitum tertio arising by way of contract” goes too far. Attempts have been made to narrow down the rule, but whether some recent decisions and dicta in England will stand up to review by the higher courts is very much open to question. The trouble is that the third party is precluded from enforcing the contract because he has provided no consideration. In Scots law there is a jus quaesitum tertio because an obligation is binding in Scotland “although it may not proceed on a valuable consideration”. In fact, the expression jus quaesitum tertio is derived from Scotland. The doctrine is recognised in French law and on the Continent. Indeed the Common Law is unique in denying it. A contract for the benefit of a third person [853] may be enforced in the State of California and in some other American States. We hope to consider the whole matter when a suitable opportunity arises for a Law of Contracts Bill.

All we can do in this Bill is to apply the doctrine within the family. As the Minister for Justice stated, it is hoped to bring in two amendments on Committee Stage. The first will extend Section 8 to cover education and endowment policies and will also get rid of the trust mechanism in the present section. The second will provide that an ordinary contract made by a husband or wife for the benefit of the other or for the benefit of a child may be enforced by the beneficiary, subject, of course, to the safeguard that the contract may be rescinded by the mutual consent of the contracting parties at any time before the beneficiary has adopted it either expressly or by conduct. Amendment of the law on these lines was recommended in 1937 in the Sixth Report of the English Law Revision Committee. Two examples of the type of case which we hope to cover will illustrate the effect of each amendment. If a man takes out an endowment policy to benefit his daughter and dies subsequently the policy moneys will, under the first amendment, be her property and not part of his estate, as at present. Under the second amendment, a widow or a child, to whom a pension or gratuity is promised by the husband's employers under his contract of employment, will be able to sue the employers successfully if the promise is not fulfilled. Under existing law neither the widow nor the child has any rights if the company defaults in payment or insists on attaching conditions to the payment.

Before I conclude, I should like to mention that the reforms proposed in the Bill have, with three exceptions, already been adopted in Britain and the Six Counties. First of all, a husband or wife may not sue the other in tort in either place, though the wife may sue for the protection of her own property. Secondly, a judicially separated wife is still in a different position from a judicially separated husband in regard to the devolution of her property [854] on intestacy: otherwise on intestacy both have equal rights. Thirdly, there is no provision in Britain or up North extending the provisions of Section 11 of the 1882 Act in regard to life insurance policies to endowment and education insurance policies, or applying the jus quaesitum tertio doctrine to ordinary contracts made by either husband or wife.

I am sorry I have had to speak at such length, but I trust I have been able to give some help to Deputies on a branch of the law, which is often technical and difficult, which is sometimes troublesome to ascertain, and which, in important matters, is greatly in need of reform. Whether Deputies will agree or not with all the reforms, they will, I am sure, agree that it is a useful and desirable thing to have whatever is to be the law available in one codifying measure. Husbands and wives will, if and when the Bill is enacted, be on an equal footing before the law for every purpose practically, except the devolution of property on intestacy. On this topic, the House will welcome the statement of the Minister that the law of inheritance is to be brought up to date so that we can look forward to another comprehensive reform measure in the not too distant future.

Debate adjourned.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Seanad Eireann has passed the Pigs and Bacon (Amendment) Bill, 1956, without amendment.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Dillon): I move:—

That it is expedient to make provision for the charging of such fees as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister for Agriculture or made by him after consultation with the Minister for Health under [855] any Act of the present session to amend and extend the Milk and Dairies Act, 1935.

Perhaps, in that connection, I might avail of this opportunity of saying that I have circulated, for the information of Deputies, a White Paper giving them some detailed information on the sections of the Bill, with a view to facilitating them in the Committee discussion and I propose, unless otherwise advised by Deputies, to assume that, from the White Paper, they will be fairly familiar with the significance of the sections.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolution reported and agreed to.

Sections 1 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 10.

Question proposed: “That Section 10 stand part of the Bill.”

Mr. Moher: At an earlier stage, I raised the question of the small dairyman who supplied, say, the local village or small town and who was not a two-season supplier. The practice at the moment is that this supplier would, in the early part of the spring, try to supplement his supplies from early calvers from neighbouring farms.

Mr. Dillon: I made a careful note of the Deputy's observation. Would it be of assistance to him if I made a short statement on the point he raised, which he should then criticise as he thinks best? On the Second Stage, Deputy Moher raised a specific point, into which I took care to look, and have recorded my considered opinion on it and would be glad of his advice in the matter.

Deputy Moher objected to the provision in Section 10 which prevents a registered dairyman from supplementing his supplies from an unregistered source in times of shortage. He suggested that this was unreasonable and [856] that a dairyman at the same time was permitted to supplement his supplies from a creamery. The latter contention is correct only in cases where the creamery to which he goes is itself registered and fully licensed by the Minister and the creamery, like the dairyman concerned, is, under the Bill, obliged to obtain supplies from a registered farmer.

The Deputy further argued that the risk of infection from milk purchased from a creamery is much greater than from milk purchased from an individual unregistered farm. The answer is, (1), that the creamery's suppliers must be registered, and, (2), that, in any event, milk sold by the creamery will be pasteurised. As the whole object of the section is to stop the practice of registered dairymen getting milk from unregistered sources, it does not appear to me, as at present advised, desirable to allow any relaxation of these provisions. If, therefore, a dairyman runs short of milk and cannot supplement his supplies from other registered dairymen in his district, he will either have to arrange to get supplies from a registered and fully licensed creamery, or ration his customers temporarily. In practice, such rationing should only be necessary for a very short period as a man engaging in the retailing of milk as a business should be expected to make adequate provision for the known needs of his own customers.

Mr. Moher: The Minister's statement is based on the assumption that the available creamery would continue to pasteurise, whereas there is quite a possibility now, under this Bill, that many of them who now pasteurise will go out of business. I can deal with it on another section, but there is that possibility, that the local creamery may not be in a position to provide pasteurised milk and the Minister is then forcing the milk vendor to purchase milk from the creamery, even unpasteurised. Some relaxation must be made so that, in a case like that, the milk vendor would be in a position to make a choice as between the milk producer and the creamery.

Mr. Dillon: I would suggest to the Deputy that he and I would agree that, [857] unless the whole principle of seeking to secure supplies of healthy milk is to be undermined, the right procedure for the milk supplier who finds himself temporarily short is to cut down his customers until he can build up his supply. Ordinarily a person in the liquid milk business knows approximately what quantity of milk he must have every day to meet his customers' requirements. It is possible that a cow may get milk fever, something may go wrong, or a cow may calf in a certain week. Surely the right procedure in that case ought to be that he should try to get another cow. It is not a thing that will happen very often but it would be a mistake to leave the door wide open when, in fact, the purpose of this Bill is to close it as tight as we can without making the situation impossible by leaving the fellow free to go to any neighbour whether that neighbour has his dairy in a condition suitable for registration or not, or again to leave him to go and draw milk from the creamery which, as Deputy Moher says, is much more susceptible to contamination than the supply of one individual farmer.

Mr. Moher: We who are familiar with the set-up in the small towns and villages in the creamery areas know that that difficulty exists in the early spring and in the latter part of the year. I am afraid that if the Minister wants to seal off completely any attempt to obtain milk from any supplier other than a supplier registered under the Milk and Dairies Act, we will find ourselves in great difficulties at certain times of the year in different villages and towns. The suggestion of rationing is something I would not agree with in a shortage. It would be starvation in the midst of plenty. The Minister should examine the matter and try to make some concession there.

Mr. Dillon: I certainly shall examine it but I do assure the Deputy I have looked into it very carefully and the furthest I can go is to say that if a really serious shortage, such as the Deputy envisages, is possible, I have power to give a special licence for a limited period to a milk supplier in [858] such an area to have recourse to an unregistered creamery. I will use that power but I will use it with great reluctance. I think that perhaps would meet the Deputy's point and provide against the kind of emergency he is thinking of.

Mr. Moylan: Completely cut off from the discussion as I am, I do agree with Deputy Moher that this clause will create a good deal of difficulty in small villages down the country. I know that, but at the risk of being irrelevant let me say that I am more alarmed about the statement made by my colleague, Deputy Moher, that creameries will refrain from pasteurising milk. I think that that is a statement of which the Minister might take very significant note because I do not see how we are ever going to overcome bovine T.B. if pasteurisation does not expand instead of decreasing.

Mr. Hughes: I can see the difficulty to which Deputy Moher refers but is there not also another difficulty, that if there is any allowance given in these cases you will not know where to stop? If a small supplier is allowed at the scarce time of the year to go and get milk from an unregistered source, where will this thing stop ? The purpose of this Bill is to tighten up on this question. If that kind of thing were allowed, there would be no limit and the Bill would be of no use at all.

Mr. Dillon: I think I can reassure Deputy Moher by saying that I have the power to relieve an urgent temporary shortage anywhere and I will relieve Deputy Hughes' mind by assuring him it is a power I shall use only in truly emergency conditions. I think the broad topic raised by Deputy Moylan may arise on a later section of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 11 agreed to.

SECTION 12.

Question proposed: “That Section 12 stand part of the Bill.”

Mr. Moher: I want to repeat the fears I have in connection with this [859] section. Creameries pasteurising milk at the moment do not pay a differential price for the milk they pasteurise and the fact that there is no differential price means there is no incentive to suppliers to carry out the necessary repairs to premises and the creameries will find their suppliers not anxious to co-operate in so far as a creamery must, when this section becomes operative, obtain milk from suppliers who are registered or who have been subjected to inspection and approval by health and veterinary inspectors. Some of the small creameries in East and North Cork do a fairly substantial business at certain times of the year in pasteurised milk. Some of them have contracts for the supply of adjoining towns and for the supply of institutions and hospitals.

From my own knowledge and from inquiries I have made I have found that the system they operate is a fairly satisfactory one in so far as most of the milk pasteurised is the morning's milk and it is going through the pasteurising plant, at the most, two or three hours after milking. It is only in the case where night milk is pasteurised that you may have a high bacteria build-up. I believe that this section will put many small creameries out of business. It is not an all-round-the-year business. It is a seasonal business for many of them and the fact that they will not be able to induce their suppliers to submit themselves to veterinary and health inspection will deprive them of the source of supply of milk for pasteurising.

I gathered that it will be insisted upon by the health and veterinary authorities that milk for pasteurisation must be received at separate receiving platforms. This will entail a general dislocation. Suppose the creamery manager insists that the milk for pasteurisation must be the fresh morning's milk—it is the safest thing for him—you will have the farmer arriving at one platform with the morning's milk and then going to another platform with the night's milk. It means an extra receiving officer. Whether or not the Creamery Managers' Association [860] will insist that that receiving officer be appointed by the creamery manager, I do not know, but you will have two separate platforms and two separate receiving officers as well. I suggest that the keeping of separate receiving utensils on the same platform should suffice and thus avoid having two separate or distinct platforms. It would mean a structural addition in many instances or a structural alteration in the existing creamery.

There is too much emphasis on buildings. The Minister is aware that one can comply with all the health and veterinary regulations and, at the same time, not produce clean milk. There is an over-emphasis on buildings and, in particular, on cow byres. We know that on the other side, where the whole milk business is primarily a liquid milk business in many instances the liquid milk is not produced in what you might call even up-to-date cow byres. They are now resorting to the sned and open yard and some of the cow houses I have seen would not comply with what we have in mind in this legislation. Nevertheless, they are producers of first-class liquid milk. There are only sheds and open yards in which dehorned cattle are allowed to roam about.

The prime factors in clean milk are not so much the house as the washing and drying and the proper de-hairing of the hind quarters and other parts of all cattle as well as clean habits by those who come in contact with the milk. The houses are not a factor. You can have an ideal milking parlour with glazed tile walls and a highly polished floor, but yet—although, to the eye, it would pass any test—the Minister knows that if milk is passed through pipes or units which have not been properly cleaned or sterilised the milk can become contaminated and have a very high bacteria count.

There is always the question of water. No matter what we may do about buildings, milking parlours or cow byres, the availability of water is a major factor in the production of milk with a low bacteria count. Many of our dairy farms have to put up with water that is far from being ideal. In many instances, water is got from an [861] adjoining stream or river and sometimes from tanks in the farmyard. This over-emphasis on the erection of cow byres and of milking units is not the factor in the production of clean milk that one would think it is, at first sight. To produce milk anywhere, provided we produce clean milk, should, I think, be the test. This section should be redrafted and the onus should be put on the creameries.

The creamery manager is the best judge of what supplier consistently supplies clean milk. I know many instances of creameries which carried out spot bacteria tests on the milk of all their suppliers. I have seen people graded grade 3 and grade 4 who did everything that one would think it reasonable for them to do in order to produce clean milk but, nevertheless, they got a very low grading. The Minister should examine this section and throw the onus entirely on the creamery manager and compel him to keep a record of the bacteria count of any milk used for pasteurisation. Forget about the production of the milk; the final test for clean milk is the bacteria count and not the visible appearance of the cow byres or the milking unit.

You can force the farmer or the milk producer to go to any expense possible; you can insist on his putting up a modern cow byre and spending an enormous amount of capital. Nevertheless, it can still happen that the milk coming from that farm has a high bacteria count. The one and only test the Minister should compel the creamery managers to apply is a regular bacteria check on the milk from all suppliers for pasteurisation.

Mr. Dillon: There is no use in disguising that with much of Deputy Moher's instinctive reaction I have a good deal of instinctive sympathy. I am often inclined to say myself that health authorities will end up by putting us all in glass cases and telling us to grow old healthfully. I do not want to grow old healthfully in a glass case and I do not want to be put in glass for the rest of my life. I would sooner face out into the world. Therefore, I agree with Deputy Moher that you [862] have to lay a restraining hand on the enthusiasts. I agree with him that, no matter how many regulations you make, you cannot provide against human fallibility. I agree with him also that a careful farmer in a reasonable cowhouse will produce much better milk than a careless farmer in a perfectly tiled and superbly equipped modern cowhouse.

We must agree that here we are dealing with the production of liquid milk for human consumption and common sense demands that we fix certain minimum standards. That is all we do and the standards fixed at present are by no means excessive. In fact, if I have any scruple at all it is that we are not drastic enough. We are spending £837,000 this year in giving grants to farmers to improve cow byres and I am faced with the fact that I have a back-log of applications sufficient to absorb a similar sum for the next two years, which, I think, should give Deputy Moher some indication of the general level of cow byre that obtains in the milk-producing areas. We are trying to correct that.

I should like, however, to reassure Deputy Moher about this. He apprehends that, if we rushed upon creameries new and drastic regulations, we might create a situation in which a creamery, having undertaken by contract to supply an institution, a hospital or some place like that, would find themselves under a legal disability to fulfil their contract. That cannot happen because I have taken powers, under Section 12 of the Bill, to exempt temporarily a creamery from the obligation of the Bill. I want to make it quite clear that that is designed for no purpose other than to provide a creamery, in the very situation envisaged by Deputy Moher, with a reasonable time to bring their amenities up to the standard set in this Bill.

Deputy Moher asks why not let the creamery manager draw from the general supply coming in the milk he wants. I think we have got to face this fact. It is not one on which I care to dwell unduly. The ideal thing—and it would simplify all our problems very [863] considerably—would be if all milk going into the creameries in Ireland were pasteurised at the point of intake and, thereafter, separated, the cream going to make butter and the skim going back to the suppliers. The fact, however, is we all know that a considerable part of the milk supply going to the creameries would not stand up to pasteurisation.

That is not a very happy state of affairs, but we have got to face the facts of life. We are gradually trying to step up standards until all milk going to cremeries will stand up to pasteurisation. At present, it is necessary to separate the cream from the milk. Now, we are trying to persuade every creamery to pasteurise the skim before returning it. We cannot take the whole supply, pasteurise it, then pass some of it for human consumption and put the rest into churns and make butter of it. It is not technically possible.

We have got to face the fact that the class of milk suitable for human consumption has to be segregated at the point of intake. There is no reason why a creamery, which sells part of its milk supply at a higher price than it would get for it if it were used for conversion into butter, should not pay the supplier who brings his byre up to the very modest standards recuired under his Bill and other legislation for qualification as a milk producer under the local authority licence some little supplement over and above what it gives for creamery milk. I do not think it would be an unreasonable request to make to the creameries that they should give some measure of compensation to the supplier who gets himself registered under the local authority as a person licensed to sell milk for human consumption.

I have to enforce these regulations. I have discussed the matter with certain creameries already. Does any Deputy seriously believe that I can pretend it is physically possible to enforce these regulations for the protection of the liquid milk supply if the milk to be used in the liquid milk supply is coming in over the same [864] platform, into the same entrance to the creamery as the milk coming in for conversion into butter? If I had an inspector standing on the platform of every creamery, every auxiliary creamery and every separating station in the country, it might be possible, but I have not and I cannot.

A creamery is under no obligation to get into this liquid milk business, but, if it wants to get into the business and thinks it will be of profit to its shareholders to do so, is it not reasonable then to say: “You will need to have a separate point of intake; you will want to keep this milk separate altogether from the milk which is passed for the purposes of conversion into butter; you will want to be able to satisfy the dairy inspector who may make an occasional visitation that there is sufficient segregation; and you will want to show bottling and sterilising facilities for the preparation of liquid milk for sale under a pasteurising licence which are adequate to maintain the standards laid down in the Bill”?

Let us remember that no creamery is obliged to go into this business. There is no public duty on any creamery implied to undertake the supply of liquid milk at all, but it is only if the creamery thinks it will bring more profit to its shareholders and suppliers that it will go into this business. All I seek is that, if they go into the business, they will be expected to comply with the minimum standards that are imposed upon everybody else who sells milk for human consumption.

In this year of 1956, can it be reasonably argued that we should enforce against everybody, no matter in how small a way of business they may be, the existing regulations for controlling the sale of milk for human consumption and not enforce them against the creameries? Those creameries which consulted me as to whether they should go in for this business have all been informed that they should not go into it, unless they are prepared to conform to the regulations envisaged in this Bill. I told them that this Bill would shortly come before the Oireachtas and be passed by the Oireachtas and they would then be under an [865] obligation to comply. Naturally, some of them said they would much prefer if they were not obliged, but they saw it was inevitable and felt that the profit of the trade they hoped to do would justify them in undertaking the proposal.

If I allowed my heart to govern my understanding, I would have much sympathy with Deputy Moher's representation, but, if I direct my heart by my understanding, as I hope Deputy Moher will proceed to do, I think he will agree with me that, if we impose conditions on any individual engaged in this trade, it is indefensibly inconsistent to declare that creameries engaged in exactly the same way should not comply with the same regulations.

Mr. Moher: The fact remains that any creamery hitherto engaged in pasteurising milk pasteurised only a mere fraction of the total intake of milk. For that reason, the manager of a creamery could afford to be selective, and, in almost all the cases that I know of, the milk was accepted for pasteurisation from certain suppliers. It was the morning's milk. What the Minister now proposes to do means that the creamery manager takes no risk whatever by accepting my milk if I, as a milk supplier, comply with the regulations set out in this Bill in regard to buildings and general set-up. No matter what premises I have, there must be the bacteria test in the final analysis. Would it not be far better that I should supply clean milk from average byres, if the creamery manager is in a position to reject my milk, if it is not suitable?

Under the Bill, all milk from registered producers can be supplied and there is nothing in the Bill, once I have complied with the necessary regulations set out, to compel the creamery manager to submit my milk to a bacteria count. If I do not comply and supply first-class milk, I am out completely. There is the question of whether or not the enormous capital which we lock up in buildings will have the desired effect. I am not in favour of the swing going that way. I would much prefer that, instead of the great lumps of concrete now being [866] erected at enormous expense, we would have open, clean sheds which would serve their purpose better and would result in healthier animals and better milk.

Mr. Dillon: I agree. I have tried to urge on farmers to build sheds with three walls but I think that Deputy Moher will agree with me that the limit of my discretion in that matter is to recommend. I cannot tell farmers that cow byres should only have three walls. I did consider carefully whether I should confine farm building grants to open buildings and I came to the conclusion that I should not. I thought it was going beyond a reasonable limit of what a Minister for Agriculture should do. I do not think that Deputy Moher will urge me on this point. There are a lot of things that we think we know are for the good of our neighbour but the worst thing to be said of any Minister for Agriculture is that he has the right to tell his neighbour that he knows what is good for him.

The second point which Deputy Moher raises goes to the very heart of this whole matter—is it not better to get clean milk than to be pasteurising? I am obliged to say, from the knowledge I have acquired from experience in the sphere of practical affairs, that I must answer “No; I do not agree.” If we could attain the ideal, of course, what Deputy Moher says is true. If we could in fact realise the ideal that all milk going into the dairy is aseptic and would remain so throughout the process of bottling and distribution, I entirely agree with Deputy Moher; but I know, as I think Deputy Moher knows also, that to find milk free from bacteria content is as rare as a white blackbird. The moment the housewife takes off the aluminium cap—now that we have succeeded in eliminating the cardboard top which was always an abundant source of contamination— it all depends on her as to what quality of milk she and her husband and her children will consume, because milk can be contaminated inside the house as well as outside the house.

I got into trouble before for saving in public what I am saying in public now, that if I had to choose between [867] the highest grade milk and pasteurised milk in an urban surrounding, I would choose pasteurised milk because I think there is so much opportunity for human fallibility between the actual production of the milk by the cow and its delivery to the potential consumer. Pasteurised milk is more likely to be free from dangerous contamination at the point of delivery than any other kind.

I do not want to dwell unduly on that aspect and I do not want in any way to belittle those who are using their best endeavours to produce T.T. milk, Grade A milk and all the rest of it. I think Deputy Moher understands my point of view just as I understand his. His point of view depends on the realisation of ideal conditions, which, so long as human beings continue to be human beings, are unlikely to be realised in the sphere of pragmatic experience. Therefore, I say to him that I prefer pasteurised milk and I think that the creamery which deliberately elects to enter this business for the benefit of its suppliers and shareholders is not being asked to undertake an unreasonable burden in providing suitable premises for the reception, pasteurisation and hygienic bottling of the product which they propose to sell at a price substantially higher than they can hope to realise by the conversion of milk into butter or other creamery products.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 13 agreed to.

SECTION 14.

Mr. Dillon: I move amendment No. 1:—

In paragraph (e), line 60, to delete “Section 32 of the Principal Act” and substitute “Section 15 of this Act”.

This section contained in the Bill was taken from the Emergency Powers Order which the section is designed to replace but the Minister for Agriculture, let us say, did not advert to the fact that Section 32 of the Principal [868] Act is being repealed by Section 3 of this Bill and is being re-enacted, with an addition thereto, in Section 15 of the Bill. The reference to Section 32 of the Principal Act should therefore have read: “Section 15 of this Act.” That is the purpose of this amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Section 14, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 15 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 24.

Question proposed: “That Section 24 stand part of the Bill.”

Mr. Moher: I am concerned here in regard to parasitic mange. The Minister is well aware that there is a disease commonly known in milk areas as cow pox. It is the usual sore teat thing. Now, if the treatment of that disease wore to be affected by this clause in relation to parasitic mange, that would mean that at a certain time it would be an offence to deliver any milk. There are certain teat infections which are always treated after milking. This says: “Parasitic mange affecting the udder.”

Mr. Dillon: Perhaps I should explain that I am advised that in recent years it has been found that the medication used——

Mr. Moher: The only one available.

Mr. Dillon: ——for the treatment of this condition, when it affects the udder, can be harmful to humans through the milk of the animal. I shall be perfectly frank with the Deputy: I am in no stronger position than he is to express a view on these matters, but the advice I got, medical and veterinary, is that those are the facts. In those circumstances, I think we are bound to forbid the sale of such milk for human consumption, because even pasteurisation may not serve to render it harmless if it is contaminated by a therapeutic drug.

Question put and agreed to.

[869] SECTION 25.

Mr. Dillon: I move amendment No. 2:—

In line 12, page 8, before “classes” to insert “persons or”.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. Dillon: I move amendment No. 3:—

In line 26, page 8, before “classes” to insert “persons or”.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Section, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 26 to 29, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 30.

Question proposed: “That Section 30 stand part of the Bill.”

Mr. Moher: Sub-section (3) states that any milk which has an offensive taste or smell shall be deemed to be contaminated. That is a very broad definition because it all depends on how one's nose or taste is educated.

Mr. Dillon: Those words are qualified.

Mr. Moher: It says any milk which has an offensive taste or smell.

Mr. Dillon: “or which...”

Mr. Moher: Milk can have an offensive taste at certain times of the year. The Minister is well aware that, when cows are turned out to early grass, for a week or so afterwards the milk is anything but palatable. Again, when cattle are fed with certain types of ensilage or on turnips, one will find a very strong smell from the milk and what could be described as an offensive taste.

Mr. Dillon: Here is a matter in which the Deputy is as wise as I and I agree with him that one has to be circumspect, as a general rule, in giving wide discretionary powers without defining them closely. Our experiance is that these regulations are administered usually by experienced [870] and, indeed, sympathetic dairy inspectors. I cannot imagine that such men would turn down milk which had nothing further wrong with it than that it was from cows fed on turnips or ensilage, though I can conceive a situation where a man was so grossly careless that the milk stank to high heaven through the use of ensilage or other feeding stuffs.

If a person habitually feeds his cattle on rank ensilage so that the milk stinks very strongly, if he stores very strong-smelling ensilage in the stable where he milks his cows, the milk would be intolerable from the point of view of the buyer. I shall consider the point if the Deputy presses me on it. If a person comes in to town and buys a bag of onions cheaply, takes them home and dumps them down beside his milk, the milk will take up the smell of the onions. I can think of places where a person would be in town, and buy a paper of fish and, as the Deputy knows, people's capacity for eating fish varies; I have had cases of herrings being left on my premises the smell of which would stagger the nation. If such things are left in imprudent proximity to milk, do you not think it is unfair to the purchaser to have to tolerate it? I do not deny that I can imagine certain feeding stuffs being improvidently used but it would be improvident on our part if we did not make such a provision for such a contingency as is envisaged.

Mr. Allen: The Minister must remember that there are certain pastures which give what is called tacked milk. I know farmers who cannot graze their animals on certain pastures during certain periods of the year because of the presence of certain types of herbs.

Mr. Dillon: Not giving the Deputy a short answer, how would he feel if two bottles of milk which stank to high heaven were delivered to his house in the morning?

Mr. Allen: The milk is quite good otherwise.

Mr. Dillon: Oh, perfectly good.

[871]Mr. Allen: The Minister is looking for trouble in this matter. If he could get some medium course it would be all right. If one feeds kale or other herbs immediately before milking, one will get the smell in the milk and that would be through the fault of the farmer. There should be no sympathy for a farmer who was careless. However, it may happen, through no fault of the producer, that the milk could not be called sweet milk as we understand that term. The whole thing depends on the individual inspector. There will be 200 or 300 inspectors administering the law and they will all have individual views. You will find a few cranks among them and the producer must have some safeguard. This legislation requires milk producers to do what they should do but we should not go too far in that respect. I would ask the Minister to look into the matter again and provide that the producer would not be penalised in cases where it was not his fault that milk had an offensive taste or smell.

Mr. Dillon: If the Deputy asks me, of course I shall, but could we resolve the matter here and now? I am anxious to have the Deputy's help to resolve it. We are dealing with a commodity which is being offered for human consumption. If I buy a bottle of milk from a creamery, it must be, under any canon of law—the Sale of Goods Act or anything else—suitable for the purpose for which it is offered. Supposing I buy milk which has a strong smell of ensilage or of some herbs from the pasture on which the animals were fed, or of some other matter which had been left in imprudent proximity to the milk before it was brought to the creamery, have I not a grievance? I paid for the milk, I got it in the sealed bottle of the creamery but I have got something I cannot drink and something the children will not drink. I have either to pour it into the pig trough or throw it out. If the creamery offers such a product as drinkable milk I think the buyer is entitled to demand of the creamery not only that the milk will not be disease ridden—that is provided for in the subsequent paragraph of the [872] section—but also that he is able to drink it.

It is all very well to say that obligation should not be put on the farmer, except in so far as the milk tastes or smells offensively through the farmer's fault. I am not really thinking of it from the point of view of assigning responsibility but from the point of view of the person who buys the bottle of milk. Is the buyer not entitled to get from a licensed pasteurising creamery milk which he will be able to use?

Mr. Allen: Guinness often sold a bad bottle of stout.

Mr. Dillon: I am not being personal in this, but if the Deputy got a bottle of stout in which there was a deceased mouse, I think he would ask the publican to render an account of his stewardship and I think he would endeavour to impose sanctions against the publican. If the publican said: “I did not put the mouse into the bottle of stout, I did not ask the mouse to go into it,” I think the Deputy would say: “I did not accuse you of putting the mouse in but there is a mouse in the stout and I will not pay.” The Deputy would be a very offhand man, liberal and all as I know him to be, if he would not say that. If you got a smell from milk from which you could not escape, that would make the milk all the more unsuitable for human consumption. I want the assistance of the Deputies in this matter, but I would ask them to consider that in this section we are dealing with a problem from the point of view of the purchaser rather than from that of the vendor, and that the purchaser is entitled to get what he has paid for—a bottle of healthy and drinkable milk.

Mr. Allen: The onus is on the creamery that pasteurises the milk.

Mr. Dillon: Yes. I suggest to the Deputy that it is not an unreasonable provision.

Mr. Allen: If it is put on the creamery, it is quite all right.

Mr. Dillon: If the creamery manager does not keep that kind of milk out of [873] his creamery, I shall want to know the reason why.

Mr. Allen: So long as it is not directly on the producer; so long as it is up to the creamery manager——

Mr. Dillon: I am afraid I could not guarantee that the producer would go scathless, but my primary quarrel would be with the creamery which distributes the milk.

Mr. Allen: But the creamery manager may have 1,000 people bringing milk to him——

Mr. Dillon: He has a duty.

Mr. Allen: The law should not be weighted unduly against the producer in any respect, because he has all the trouble.

Mr. Dillon: I quite agree.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 31 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 14th November, 1956.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 38:—

Schedule:—

In article 12, page 32, paragraph (iii), line 34, before “A” to insert the following:—

“, together with detailed accounts and balance sheets in respect of each undertaking carried on by the Club or on its behalf.”—Deputy Briscoe.

Mr. MacEntee: When the Dáil adjourned on the last occasion, we were discussing amendment No. 38, and Deputy Briscoe was urging that the amendment should be accepted at least in principle by the Minister for Agriculture. I trust that Deputy Briscoe was not unduly optimistic in that regard. Indeed, I do not see how [874] this amendment can be rejected in principle, since it seeks to give effect to the principle contained in paragraph 125——

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Dillon): To shorten the debate—if you want this, we can have it done on Report.

Mr. MacEntee: Thank you very much.

Mr. Dillon: Would you care to put down your amendment again or would you prefer me to bring in another amendment?

Mr. MacEntee: It might be better for the Minister to put down an amendment.

Mr. Dillon: Will you withdraw this and put down your amendment again in case you do not like my amendment? It is only for your convenience. I shall put something down but I am afraid it may not please you. Therefore, I am suggesting that you should withdraw this amendment and put it down again so that you will have your amendment to stand on, if mine does not meet you fully.

Mr. MacEntee: It would be quite a different matter if the Minister would be good enough to say that he was accepting this amendment and that so far as there may be any fault in the draftsmanship, arising from the fact that it was drafted by amateurs, he would put down an amendment on Report Stage——

Mr. Dillon: The Deputy was in this business long enough and did he ever accept an amendment that the Parliamentary Draftsman did not find some fault with? All I am saying is that I am accepting that amendment, but I do not want to put it in now for fear the Parliamentary Draftsman would say: “Now I shall have to amend the whole thing.” I want to get an amendment to give effect to what is proposed in Deputy Briscoe's amendment.

Mr. MacEntee: I fully appreciate the Minister's desire to meet our point of view. I think he is being quite reasonable, but the Minister will understand that there is a point of parliamentary [875] procedure which puts us in rather a difficulty.

Mr. Dillon: What is it?

Mr. MacEntee: There could be a great deal of argument upon the merits of the particular form of the amendment——

Mr. Dillon: That is why I want you to put yours down again, for fear mine may not please you.

Mr. MacEntee: I should hate to be so pessimistic as to assume in advance that the Minister's amendment would not please us. The point I am going to make is that, in general, I think the proper procedure is—and I believe it has been the almost invariable procedure—when a Minister indicates that he is prepared to accept the principle of an amendment and to bring in an amendment on Report Stage, the Minister puts down the amendment and gives the Opposition or whoever is concerned—it is not necessarily a member of the Opposition—an opportunity of saying whether the Minister's proposal—which presumably will be acceptable to the Minister—will also be acceptable to the Deputy interested.

Mr. Dillon: Certainly.

Mr. MacEntee: It would facilitate us if the Minister would bring in his amendment first——

Mr. Dillon: Certainly.

Mr. MacEntee: ——because our amendment will be down in this form and the Minister has some qualms as to whether, in this form, it can properly be embodied in the Bill.

Mr. Dillon: Certainly. All I am anxious about is that the Deputy should have some amendment of his own down on Report, so that if mine does not please him, he can argue on his own.

Mr. MacEntee: That is all right.

Amendment No. 38, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. MacEntee: I move amendment No. 39:—

[876] In article 12, page 32, paragraph (ii), line 35, before “to” where it firstly occurs, to insert “to the Minister”.

We have now reached what is, perhaps, the most difficult part of the Bill, that is, the Schedule. What we are suggesting here—I think it is purely formal—is that it would be proper to send the audited consolidated balance sheet and statement of accounts to the Minister.

Mr. Dillon: I would ask the Deputy not to press that, for this reason: the Deputy will bear in mind, in regard to other sections of the Bill where amendments stood in his name, I reminded him we are now dealing with the affairs of the club and not the board. It probably occurs to the Deputy's mind that if there was an obligation in the Bill for the club to furnish me with certain statutory information, the question might be raised as to whether it would not be furnished to somebody else within whose jurisdiction the club will continue to function. Does the Deputy follow?

Mr. MacEntee: Yes. I see the point the Minister is hinting at, and I appreciate it, I ask the Minister to look at amendment No. 40, which proposes in article 12, page 32, to add a new paragraph as follows:—

“(iv) The Minister, as soon as may be after he has received them, shall lay copies of the balance sheets and accounts of the club before each House of the Oireachtas.”

We are really concerned about that, and amendment No. 39 was a sort of preparatory amendment to enable amendment No. 40 to be made effective.

Mr. Dillon: Does the Deputy not see immediately what flows from it?

Mr. MacEntee: No.

Mr. Dillon: I had no difficulty in meeting the Deputy's desires in matters relating to the board.

The board is the creature of this Parliament. The board effectively functions within our jurisdiction. We [877] all attach value to the fact that it has been possible to maintain the club as a national institution, and if the Deputy looks at the whole Schedule, he will see that we have been manoeuvring all the time to avoid raising the question of the separate jurisdictions in so far as the club is concerned. The moment we put on the club a duty to the Minister or to this Parliament, if the club is to continue to function as the sole authority for the whole of the country, how can we resist representations that a similar duty must be put upon it to render the same account to a corresponding person or institution in the Six Counties? Or it will be pressed upon those who constitute the club in that area that they should dissociate themselves from their fellow-countrymen down here, lest it appear that they accept the jurisdiction which is not universally accepted there. You may say that is unreasonable; you may say it is irrational; but it is one of the facts we have to face. I do not want, if I can help it, to canvass it too energetically in public, but I think it is entitled to the sympathetic consideration of the House, in an effort to preserve the unity of a sporting association which has managed to avoid this question being raised up to now.

Mr. MacEntee: I appreciate everything the Minister has to say and I should not like to say anything which would make this a matter of public controversy between the two parts of our country; but, at the same time, the Minister, in view of the terms in which the report of the Advisory Committee refers to the practices of the existing club, will appreciate that we are very anxious that these things should not occur again. The old club has been a sort of closed borough. The standing committee of the old club, according to the report of the Advisory Committee, has been concerned with more or less keeping its proceedings within a sort of arcana of secrecy to withhold from the members of the club at large the information which they are properly entitled to. That is why we put down amendment No. 40.

On the point which the Minister is [878] now putting to me, and to which I am anxious to give the utmost consideration, I must say I do not altogether see how a requirement such as we ask in amendment No. 40, if fulfilled, would indeed lead to the partitioning of the sport of greyhound coursing so that there would be two separate authorities governing and controlling the sport in Ireland. If the Minister looks at the Bill as a whole, he will find there certain sections which make the Coursing Club to some extent responsible or amenable to the Greyhound Advisory Board. There are interdependent functions, in regard to some of which I think the Advisory Board is the predominant authority. I am not making a debating point of this, but the Minister has not been able to give effect throughout the Bill in the sections which he himself has drafted to the argument which he is using in respect of amendment No. 40. Another thing occurs to me. There has gone through the House the Great Northern Railway Act and there, I think, the G.N.R. Board has to report to both sides.

Mr. Dillon: Yes.

Mr. MacEntee: I understand that the Minister does not want that situation to arise. Candidly, I do not think that it would be in any way prejudicial to the position of this part of the country in relation to its demand and desire for a unified Ireland. I do not see that. In fact it might be rather a good thing that both Administrations would have cognisance of what is being done. I say it might be; I will not say it will be a good thing, because one never knows how events may develop in the future.

If the Minister could suggest some way of ensuring that the information, which the Advisory Committee states should be made fully available to the membership of the club, would be made available also to the Minister and also to the members of Dáil Éireann by being tabled in this House, then we should be very grateful to him. I do not suppose that if these accounts were tabled they would ever become a matter of controversy in the House. There are many bodies, the Racing Board, the National Stud, and so on, [879] the accounts of which are tabled, but I do not remember that they were ever discussed. Neither were the accounts of the E.S.B. What we on this side of the House are really anxious to ensure is that there will always be available to members of the House, if they so desire it, the material which will enable them to satisfy themselves that the affairs of the Coursing Club, which is to be reformed under the legislation of this House, will be conducted in a proper way.

Mr. Dillon: I cannot meet the Deputy on this for the reasons I have stated. In regard to the desire of Deputies and others to inform themselves, there is, of course, always available to them the recourse of joining a club, attending the annual general meetings and exercising the rights provided for them under paragraph (3) of Section 12 of the Schedule. I think the Deputy fully understands, even if he may not sympathise with, the reservations I have on this matter. I feel that to meet the Deputy in respect of amendment No. 40 would put in jeopardy the unity of the organisation which I believe has successfully preserved that unity, in spite of the necessity for legislation of this kind. I understand the Deputy's view, but I energetically dissent from it, that, in a statute of this House, we should impose upon a sporting body of this kind an obligation to render an account of its stewardship to the jurisdiction of another authority, the general jurisdiction of which de jure we question and even deny. The analogy of the G.N.R. is not accurate.

The Deputy will discharge me, I hope, from any appearance of discourtesy if I say to him that, having said that much, I do not think I have anything that I could profitably add to the discussion of this amendment which, for the reasons I have given him, I must absolutely resist.

Mr. MacEntee: I just want to correct the Minister. I have not said that I would desire that the Club should send copies of its accounts to any person other than the Minister for Agriculture responsible to this House, that these accounts should be tabled anywhere else than in this House. It is necessary for me to say that, Sir, because the Minister, inadvertently, I am sure, has endeavoured to suggest that I was making quite a different proposition. I have not made that proposition. The business which is before the House is the amendment which asks:

“The Minister, as soon as may be after he has received them, shall lay copies of the balance sheets and accounts of the Club before each House of the Oireachtas.”

I merely want to put it on record that that is what I have said and that is what I am standing over and not on the gloss which the Minister has put, inadvertently, I am sure, upon my remarks.

Mr. O'Malley: I would draw your attention, first of all, to the fact that we are getting drenched here.

Mr. Dillon: Is the roof leaking?

Mr. O'Malley: It is, very badly. The Board of Works should get a cut in their grant.

Mr. MacEntee: Government economy.

Mr. Dillon: I am sure, to restore Deputy MacEntee's confidence, the Government will be pleased to supply him with an umbrella.

[881]Mr. MacEntee: We had better ask Deputy Sweetman to provide us with waterproofs.

An Ceann Comhairle: To put the Chair right, are amendments Nos. 39 and 40 being discussed together?

Mr. MacEntee: Perhaps you would take them together. One is merely complementary to the other.

An Ceann Comhairle: Very good.

Mr. O'Malley: I should like to point out to the Minister that there is no analogy at all between the amendment and the legislation which was enacted jointly by the two Governments. If the Minister looks at the Racing Board Act, 1945, he will find a perfect analogy with the amendment moved by Deputy MacEntee. There we have the Turf Club composed of so many members of the Irish National Hunt and others. They then have representation on the Racing Board. In fact, they have a controlling interest. I would point out to the Minister that, as Deputy MacEntee has said, the accounts of the Racing Board and the National Stud are placed before both Houses of the Oireachtas, but the main point I would make is that the I.N.H.S. has complete jurisdiction in racing over the whole of Ireland.

Mr. Dillon: They do not put their accounts before Dáil Éireann.

Mr. O'Malley: There is an analogy between the two because, under the Racing Board Act, 1945, they also have power to make regulations in certain matters of a disciplinary nature. The Minister will agree on that.

Mr. Dillon: The I.N.H.S. does not put its accounts before Dáil Éireann.

Mr. O'Malley: I am trying to show the analogy. They are a body with complete jurisdiction for the whole of Ireland.

Mr. Dillon: Yes, but they do not put their accounts before us.

Mr. O'Malley: The Irish Coursing Club are also in the same position.

Mr. Dillon: Yes.

[882]Mr. O'Malley: The Turf Club have the right of nominating the controlling interest on the Racing Board, whose accounts are put before both Houses.

Mr. Dillon: And the accounts of this board are controlled by the Oireachtas.

Mr. O'Malley: I submit that a very important constitutional issue is involved by the Minister's refusal to accept this amendment. I am appalled and amazed that the Minister should refuse, solely on the grounds mentioned by him. It has set a most amazing precedent for legislation. The Houses of the Oireachtas represent the whole of Ireland. It just happens, temporarily, that six of our counties are occupied. The grounds on which the Minister refuses to accept the amendment are ridiculous.

The Minister fobbed us off very lightly when he said that if anyone wants to get these accounts they should join a club. The advisory committee dealt very fully with that when they said that every member of the club should be entitled to full information about any and every activity of the club or its subsidiary companies and that they felt that much of the prevailing dissatisfaction originated because members felt that they had not been given sufficient details in this connection. This is the very same position. It will not be altered in any respect. We have no guarantee that the method of producing the balance sheet will be altered although we have gone a little further now that the Minister has intimated that he will accept amendment No. 38. There is no guarantee that every member of the club will get this information. I still say that the reasons given by the Minister for refusing this amendment are most amazing.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Is amendment No. 39 being withdrawn?

Mr. MacEntee: We will withdraw amendments Nos. 39 and 40 because I should like to give some consideration to what the Minister has said. In view of it, I am rather reluctant to press the amendment but I should like to have another opportunity of speaking on it.

[883]Mr. Dillon: I should prefer to have these amendments disposed of to-night in a positive or negative sense.

Mr. MacEntee: It is up to the House to permit me to withdraw them if I wish.

Mr. Dillon: No.

Mr. MacEntee: Yes. “Amendment, by leave, withdrawn” is not unusual.

Mr. Dillon: Though I would be anxious to accommodate the Deputy I do not propose to give him——

Mr. MacEntee: The opportunity.

Mr. Dillon: ——leave.

Mr. MacEntee: We had better discuss this at some greater length.

Mr. Dillon: No.

Mr. MacEntee: I do not wish to prolong discussion.

Mr. Dillon: Yes, the Deputy does.

Mr. O'Malley: The Government has no business if we shut up.

Mr. Dillon: Keep going. You are very welcome.

Mr. MacEntee: The Minister is working himself up. After all he has been quiescent for the last quarter of an hour or 20 minutes and we do not want to have him erupting. We know he is very eloquent when he gets started but we have really come here to try to do business. I am sorry the Minister will not allow the House to have another opportunity to consider this. He says “no.” Well I am going to ask the House to give me leave to withdraw the amendments.

Mr. Dillon: I do not propose to agree to such a course. I would prefer to have these amendments disposed of definitively.

Mr. MacEntee: So be it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Amendment No. 39 has been moved. It can be withdrawn, but amendment No. 40 has not been moved.

[884]Mr. MacEntee: I have moved amendment No. 39. The Minister can divide on amendment No. 39 if he wishes.

Mr. Dillon: I respectfully submit that both amendments have been moved and both amendments have been discussed. You have ruled that both can be discussed together and you cannot discuss what has not been moved.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The two amendments have been taken together for the purpose of debate but in a case of that nature only one amendment is moved. The two can be debated; then the question can be put on the second, if necessary, but No. 40 has not been moved.

Mr. MacEntee: I merely rise to point out in relation to amendment No. 39 that in fact it was a precursor to amendment No. 40. However, the Minister has been so docile and gentle to-night that I would hate to annoy him by putting amendment No. 39. We will allow him to negative amendment No. 39 and refuse to accept the little preposition “to”.

Amendment No. 39 put and negatived.

Amendment No. 40 not moved.

Question proposed: “That the Schedule, as amended, stand part of the Bill.”

Mr. MacEntee: I could say a lot about the Schedule to the Bill. The only thing I want to say is that in the light of the Advisory Committee's Report the Irish Coursing Club was overdue for reform. I regret to say that in his attempt to reform the club the Minister appears to have been half-hearted. So far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we have been driven to the conclusion that the main purpose of the Minister in drafting the Schedule to the Bill and indeed in drafting the Bill itself was not to reform the club so much as to confirm in control of the sport of greyhound coursing and of greyhound racing the vested interests whose conduct was so strongly criticised and condemned by the Minister's own Advisory Committee.

[885] It is regrettable that the Minister who set up this Advisory Committee did not see his way to hearken to their recommendations and to give effect to them. Fortunately for the time being the Minister has what were once his big battalions but are now his dwindling battalions to support him. We know that, like those who are collectively responsible for the invasion of Hungary, he is quite prepared to use these battalions to steam-roll this Schedule through the House if he feels it necessary. The country has other problems which are much more important to the people as a whole than those involved in the reformation of the Irish Coursing Club. We should have preferred that in the circumstances of the past six months the Government would have been addressing itself to these problems and that the Minister for Agriculture in particular would have been using the talents which he has to try to bring back to Irish agriculture the prosperity which it enjoyed under his predecessors.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy seems to be wandering somewhat from the Bill. The Schedule deals with the constitution of the Irish Coursing Club and that is all that is before the House.

Mr. MacEntee: I am merely——

Mr. Dillon: Defying the Chair as he usually does.

Mr. MacEntee: No. Far from defying the Chair I am merely making my apologia to the public for the fact——

Mr. Dillon: That is badly needed.

Mr. MacEntee: ——that we are not proposing to fight this Schedule tooth and nail. We would prefer, rather than occupy the time of the House further in discussing this Bill, that the Minister would go back to his Department and try to do something to revivify Irish agriculture. We are giving him the time and the leisure. He has all the resources at his command which would enable him to do that.

Mr. Dillon: This Bill has been ten months before the House. During every hour of the discussion I have [886] been available and experienced Deputies in this House will wonder why a piece of legislation of this kind required ten months' consideration. It required it as a result of what Deputy MacEntee himself has described as the vicious opposition of those for whom he spoke. I think it is right the reason for the opposition should be recorded again. There are many in the country who will ask what interest Deputy MacEntee had in the greyhound industry.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: That does not arise on the Schedule. I have already pointed out to Deputy MacEntee the Schedule deals with the constitution of the Irish Coursing Club and nothing else.

Mr. Dillon: Nothing else. The people in this country are asking themselves what interest Deputy MacEntee has in the Irish Coursing Club, and the answer is quite simple. Throughout this Schedule and every section of this Bill he has been guided by his disedifying hatred of a dead man whose memory he has pursued with a vindictiveness that does him no credit. If he has no respect for himself, he should at least abstain from corrupting those younger than himself as he has done by his example in the course of this discussion, and he knows it and his colleagues know it. I believe that the Bill we are at present discussing and this Schedule which enshrines the constitution of the Irish Coursing Club serves a useful purpose in the promotion and expansion of a valuable industry. This Bill should have been disposed of and should have been in operation six months ago.

Mr. O'Malley: If the Minister had co-operated.

Mr. Dillon: It would have been to the great advantage of the industry and, indeed, of the country if this constitution were now operating. The delay is to be deplored.

When Deputy MacEntee speaks with contempt of the significance of this industry, and says that the time of the Oireachtas is ill-spent in providing for its welfare, I think he reveals his own ignorance of the matters which he [887] pretended to discuss on their merits for the past ten months in this House. This is potentially a most valuable industry in this country and, if it were not, it would be quite inappropriate to invite Oireachtas Éireann to enact legislation for its proper control and direction.

The only reason for submitting this Schedule to the House and asking the House to give it the status of statutory recognition is because the greyhound industry can be, and should be, of material value to the economic life of Ireland. If I did not believe that, I would never have submitted this Bill to this House. I believe that in that view I am supported by my predecessors in the office which I at present hold. I think I have heard the late Deputy Walsh record his opinion that this is a great and valuable industry in the economic life of Ireland. I believe that Deputy Smith and Deputy Dr. Ryan would share that view. I do not doubt that Deputy Hogan would, too, were he still with us.

I want to make perfectly clear that the suggestion that legislative time was wasted in the consideration of insignificant matters when we were deliberating on essential parts of this Bill is manifest evidence of the ignorance of Deputy MacEntee of the significance of the work we are trying to do. If that be his plea—if ignorance be his plea—in extenuation of his disgraceful and vindictive conduct in the debate on this Schedule and on every other part of this Bill, we will excuse him but I think his venerable status in this House imposes upon him an obligation to purge himself of such ignorance before he wastes the time of his colleagues with his mouthings again.

Mr. O'Malley: Arising out of the Minister's remarks on the Schedule, I want to make clear to the Minister and to the House—as the Minister has just left, perhaps his Parliamentary Secretary will convey these views to him— that at no time did this Party set out to waste the time of this House on this Bill. Would it not be a fantastic [888] position that we, as an Opposition, should do so? Why should we do so?

This Bill was first introduced in December, 1955. Since then, almost 12 months have elapsed but, in all that time, it has been before the House on only 17 occasions. The Greyhound Industry Bill was looked upon by the Government as a stop-gap. They threw in that Bill at the tail end when they had nothing else to do. Here we are to-day in this House and in this country discussing the Schedule to this Bill—a comparatively trivial matter compared with the problems which face this House and the country as a whole. We have 61,000 unemployed.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I cannot allow the Deputy to continue in that strain.

Mr. O'Malley: With respect, a vile attack was allowed by the Chair to be made by the Minister on Deputy MacEntee.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I felt that Deputy MacEntee had strayed outside the bounds of discussion on the Schedule and I allowed the Minister to reply to remarks made by Deputy MacEntee. I will not allow Deputy O'Malley to reopen the discussion.

Mr. O'Malley: To-night, we have only reached the end of the Schedule. Due to lack of co-operation by the Minister for Agriculture, it would appear that this side of the House will have a very busy time indeed dealing with amendments, particularly to this Schedule, on the Report Stage. It was very significant, particularly when this Schedule was under discussion, that not one member of the Government side of the House spoke or supported the Minister.

What is the anxiety in the mind of the Minister for Agriculture to have this Bill passed in its present form and particularly with no major change, good, bad or indifferent, with regard to the Schedule? Is it not a known fact that when this Bill becomes law——

Mr. Dillon: As it will.

Mr. O'Malley: Is it not a known fact that promises have been made to those [889] who will be the chairman and members of the board?

Mr. Dillon: It is not.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: It does not arise on the Schedule.

Mr. O'Malley: The Minister states this House deliberately delayed the passing of this Bill. Is it not a fact that he stated that Deputy MacEntee used the Bill for ulterior motives to slander certain individuals in this House who are unable to defend themselves here? That is the suggestion made by the Minister.

Mr. Dillon: Slander the dead.

Mr. O'Malley: The Minister has often referred in this House to the dead. This is the most important part of the Bill. In the main, all they did was to cite the relevant passages from the report of the Advisory Committee which was set up by the Minister. It is a great pity the recommendations of that committee were not carried out in full. If they had been, this Bill might long ago have become an Act. The Minister has given no reason why this Bill has taken so long to go through the House——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The length of time this Bill has taken to go through this House does not arise on the Schedule. Unless the Deputy comes to the Schedule, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. O'Malley: I want to point out that the Schedule deals with the whole constitution of the Irish Coursing Club and this club is the body which now, under this Bill, will have control of the new board. Would the Minister kindly let us know what purpose this side of the House would have in discussing at length particularly the various aspects referred to in the Schedule? Why should we go into the matter so energetically? Why should we have committee meetings of our Party and subcommittee meetings of the members of our Party who are interested in this Bill? Why the undue haste on the part of the Minister? Even though it has been on the Order Paper since December, [890] 1955, it has been here only 17 days when the Government had nothing else to do.

It is up to us on this side of the House on Report Stage to try to amend this Schedule and convince the Minister finally that there are sections which are repugnant to the Constitution and which are dangerous in the effects they will have on the rights of the private individual, and particularly in regard to the administration of the whole greyhound industry.

This is a Bill which was introduced without sufficient thought being given to it, and one of the saddest features of the whole matter is that all the recommendations of the Advisory Committee have been ignored. I should also like to remind the House that if it is the Minister's anxiety to appoint former members of the Irish Coursing Club as chairman or members of the board——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: That has nothing to do with the Schedule.

Mr. O'Malley: I do not know what promise or undertaking was given by the Minister, but it is freely rumoured that such is the case. If that is so, the sooner he tells us that, the better it will be for all concerned. It is up to him to appoint a new board when this——

Mr. Dillon: There is not a scintilla of truth in the slander the Deputy is trying to perpetrate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The appointment of the new board does not arise on the Schedule of the Bill.

Mr. O'Malley: I have already said that the board is composed in the main of the majority of this club. The whole Bill, and particularly this matter, is reeking with injustices and inaccuracies. I have already discovered certain sections which I brought to the attention of the Minister.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: They cannot be discussed on the Schedule.

Mr. O'Malley: I am not discussing the Bill. I want to point out that there was a certain portion of this Bill which had already been repealed by [891] previous legislation of this House. Let me give one small example of the manner in which it has been formulated. For instance, at paragraph 5 of the Schedule, it is stated:—

“The club shall in every year hold at least one general meeting which shall be known as the Annual General Meeting of the Club.”

Paragraph 12 (iii) of the Schedule states:—

“The Secretary and Honorary Treasurer shall submit to every Annual General Meeting of the Club a duly audited Consolidated Statement of Revenue and Expenditure.”

One does not need to have the assistance of lawyers in order to discover that these little inaccuracies exist.

Mr. Dillon: The Deputy was too lazy to put down an amendment to correct them.

Mr. MacEntee: It was the Minister's job. The Minister is paid for bringing in a proper Bill.

Mr. O'Malley: If we were to put down all the correct amendments we would at least have another 46 in my estimation to put down. The Minister chided us on several occasions for being too lazy to put down amendments. The Minister will appreciate that if he accepted one amendment, then a lot of the others would follow automatically. I hope that on the Report Stage the Minister will be at least a little more co-operative than he has been up to now.

Mr. MacEntee: This Bill might have had a smooth and easy passage, were it not for the venomous attack delivered upon me by the Minister for Agriculture. He alleges that I was in some way animated by personal spleen against living and dead people. I have no spleen or animus against any person in this country—certainly none that I would carry to the stage of blackmailing him, abusing him and slandering him in the manner in which the Minister for Agriculture, as a Deputy of this House, slandered men [892] who are dead, when he made unfounded accusations about the Locke Distillery.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: We are dealing with the Schedule.

Mr. MacEntee: Arising out of that, the Minister was tried and condemned by three judges of this State. I do not wish to pursue that matter further except to put it on record that these things are not forgotten and that the Minister had better put a bridle on that tongue of his. Why are we concerned about this club? We are concerned about it because of the findings of the Minister's own investigating committee, among whom were Deputy Anthony Barry and several friends of the Minister, several political friends of the Minister, who severely criticised this club.

I have mentioned the name of a member of this House, Deputy Anthony Barry. I see also appended to this report the name of Mr. Peter P. Wilkinson who has been honoured by the Minister and the Government with appointments on various boards, the latest, I gather, being his appointment as another director of Bord na Móna. While they are making two jobs for their friends, 12 or 13 engineers of the board are under notice of dismissal.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy is going very wide of the Schedule.

Mr. MacEntee: Yes, Sir, and now I want to get back to the report. The Minister accused me of slandering him. Let us hear what Deputy Anthony Barry and Mr. Peter P. Wilkinson had to say about the gentleman whom the Minister is going to put in control of this club, the person to whom the Minister is going to give a statutory right to remain in control of the club and to enjoy the fruits of the vested interests which have been built up.

This club, as was pointed out in the course of the debate, has very valuable properties. It has the Greyhound and Sporting Press, valued, I think, at £60,000. It has Powerstown Park upon which enormous sums have been spent. [893] It has the Irish Cup meeting in accommodating which £11,500 has been spent. These are very substantial sums. The committee has said that it is extraordinary how these valuable properties are being represented to the members of the club. They call attention, in the relative paragraphs of the report, to the fact that the Greyhound and Sporting Press is presented in the balance sheet of the club, as value for £1—a property worth £60,000.

I suppose one should not be optimistic and it is only right one should discount the present values in view of the fact that they may not survive future contingencies, but the idea of writing down property valued at £60,000, by £59,000, so that it figures in the balance sheet of the club at £1 certainly calls for criticism and comment. I think it imposes on the Legislature the duty of ensuring that that sort of thing will not continue. The Advisory Committee strongly advised that it should not continue and that whoever was bringing in legislation to deal with this matter should include in the legislation such provisions as would ensure that it could not possibly be done.

We had an amendment down to this section, amendment No. 40, which we thought would be the most effective way of ensuring that the sort of thing which had been happening up to the present with the coursing club could not recur. The amendment, in fact, was a simple one and merely asked that

“The Minister, as soon as may be after he has received them, shall lay copies of the balance sheets and accounts of the club before each House of the Oireachtas.”

The Minister, upon grounds which I did not want to tear asunder because I did not want to have a discussion here about the relations of this Legislature and another part of Ireland, prevailed upon us not to move that amendment.

Mr. Dillon: I begged you to move it.

Mr. MacEntee: The real concern of the Minister was not because he might divide the Irish Coursing Club's jurisdiction but to ensure that the gentlemen [894] who have conducted the affairs of the club in the past, in a manner which has been animadverted to by the Advisory Committee, would be able to do the same thing in the future if they cared to do it. When it was pointed out by Deputy O'Malley that the Minister was contemptuous of this House, the Minister said that if Deputies who are legislating for this body wanted to know what the body was doing they could join a coursing club. That is no way for a Minister, responsible to this House, to address those who are as responsible as he is—Deputies to whose votes, for or against, he owes the portfolio which he holds.

Let the Minister remember we are not Fascists. We know he did support the Irish Fascists——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: We are dealing with the Schedule.

Mr. MacEntee: Let him treat the Deputies of this Assembly with the respect due to them as representatives of the people. The Minister, even if he has four quarterings on his broken shield, is not any better than the lowliest member of this House and certainly not nearly so courteous or mannerly as most members of this House. The Advisory Committee pointed out that many of these properties which have been acquired by the Club were not being used on the whole for the benefit and advantage of the Club. What is much more serious, they pointed out in regard to these properties that no trustee deed had been executed. Here is what the Minister's own colleagues, supporters, friends and appointees, had to say in regard to the property of this Club, set out in paragraph 117, page 48, of the Report: “In regard to the assets of the I.C.C., other than Powerstown Park, Ltd., and the Greyhound and Sporting Press, Ltd., no instrument is in existence to show that these assets are vested in trustees for the Club.”

The Minister said, on one occasion here, that the instrument had, since the Report of the Committee, been executed. I take leave to doubt that. The Minister has submitted no evidence to the House to show that that statement [895] was correct and that that instrument, which did not exist at the date of the Advisory Committee's report, has since been brought into existence. We should be glad if the Minister will table, for the Report Stage, a copy of the instrument to which he referred.

In another part of this Report, a reference is made to an agreement entered into between certain parties and the Irish Coursing Club. I cannot at the moment put my hand on the reference but there is in the Report a statement to the effect that it should be made quite clear that each and every one of those who are entered in the register of shareholders in the Greyhound and Sporting Press and Powerstown Park hold the shares as trustees for the Irish Coursing Club. I do not know whether the recommendations of the Advisory Committee in relation to that matter have been carried out.

The Minister in putting this Bill before the House on Second Reading did not claim that they had been carried out. There is a proviso here which appears to cover the point, but I am doubtful as to whether or not it covers it effectively. Another thing about this body, possessing assets of almost £100,000, entered in its balance sheet as being worth £3, which the Advisory Committee had to criticise in regard to its conduct of affairs was this—Sir, if the Minister is not concerned to observe the ordinary courtesies of the House, I suppose I can wait until he feels ready to do so. The Minister rubs his hands. The Minister, no doubt, thinks he is getting away with it, thinks his friends are getting away with it; but let the Minister and his friends know now that this Bill will probably be subjected to very drastic revision, even if it ever reaches the Statute Book, and his friends, and the beneficiaries of his legislation, had better beware.

Now that the Minister is in a mood to listen, let me further refresh the Minister's memory about what his own Advisory Committee had to say in paragraph 124 of the report. They said:—

[896]“Witnesses expressed themselves entirely dissatisfied with the present procedure of the club in these matters—

that is, in relation to the manner in which the club's accounts were presented,

... while full members of the club, they had been refused their right to see its balance sheet, although this was denied by representatives of the standing committee.”

I do not want to weary the House. As has been said, we have been a long time on this Bill, but there are references in this committee's report to the manner in which the annual meetings of the club were conducted. I have said before, and I repeat it, that any member of the club who appeared to be too inquisitive, any member of the club who went to the annual general meeting seeking for information as to the proceedings of the club, and particularly of its officers, went there in peril of personal violence. The position we have reached is that, on the basis of that committee's report, we have criticised this Bill as being inadequate to root out the evils which were exposed by the committee. We have felt, as I have said, that the real purpose was to confirm the friends of the Minister in the possession of the vested interests which they have built up and, in addition, place them in a position of unchallengeable authority, able to dominate and control not only greyhound racing and greyhound coursing but the whole greyhound industry, from the breeding and the littering to the ultimate export of such dogs as we may be able to sell abroad. I think that is the sole purpose of this Bill and, because it is, this is the most audacious piece of graft that has ever been submitted to any legislature.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy is now discussing the entire Bill.

Mr. Dillon: Is it in order to describe legislation submitted by the Government of this country as indecent graft? Is it in order for a Deputy to describe legislation submitted by the Government to the Oireachtas as indecent graft?

[897]An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I feel it is a political charge that has been made very often in this House.

Mr. MacEntee: Made very often by the Minister himself. Now, Sir, he is getting a little of his own medicine, but he will get a bit more of it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Deputy MacEntee on the Schedule.

Mr. Dillon: We have sunk very low.

Mr. MacEntee: He will get more of it before this Bill becomes law and the people who are interested in this industry, the real people, the greyhound owners and breeders, are taking notice of what the Minister is doing. However, as I have said, we did not oppose this Bill on Second Reading because we had some hope that the Minister would be prepared to discuss the Bill in a reasonable way, would be prepared to take into consideration the report of his own Advisory Committee, and that the Bill would be amended in this House in such manner as would make it acceptable to both sides and to a majority of those interested in the greyhound industry. The Minister has not seen his way to do that and therefore we have, as the Minister has reminded us, fought this Bill tooth and nail in the hope that we might——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy is again referring to the provisions of the Bill. They do not arise on the Schedule.

Mr. MacEntee: We were prepared to meet the Minister and discuss the Schedule in a reasonable way, but, instead of our efforts being appreciated, the Minister has had the audacity to get up here and make a virulent personal attack upon the members of the [898] Opposition who are only doing a public duty in order to ensure that the evils, which have vitiated this sport, will be rooted out and will not again be replanted by the Minister's nominees.

Question put and agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: When is it proposed to take the Report Stage?

Mr. Dillon: I take it Deputies would like some time.

Mr. MacEntee: We would.

Mr. Dillon: Shall we say the first sitting day next session?

Mr. MacEntee: Yes, but we should like the Minister to put in his amendments as soon as possible. We do not want to be cluttering up the Order Paper unnecessarily. We have a number of amendments which we might put down, but, if the Minister is disposed to meet us in regard to any of them, it would facilitate discussion and shorten matters if the Minister would put down his own views first.

Mr. Dillon: I shall do my utmost to have the amendments in the hands of Deputies as soon as possible. I shall be grateful to Deputies, who are concerned to put down amendments of their own, if they will make them available to me as soon as convenient.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: It is necessary to fix a date for the Report Stage.

Mr. Dillon: Shall we say 13th February next?

Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 13th February, 1957.

The Dáil adjourned at 8.10 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 14th November, 1956.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins: asked the Minister for Lands if he will state in respect of each financial year since 1932-33 the amount of money provided in the Vote for Forestry under the following heads: (a) acquisition of land, (b) forest development and maintenance, etc., and (c) timber conversion.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Blowick): The information requested is set out in the following table:—

FORESTRY VOTE (INCLUDING PROVISION IN SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES).

Year	SUBHEAD C. 1 Acquisition of Land (Grant-in-Aid)	SUBHEAD C. 2 (See note (a)) Forest Development and Maintenance, etc.	SUBHEAD C. 3 (See note (b)) Timber conversion
	£	£	£
1932/33	10,000	45,500	1,500
1933/34	35,000	50,500	1,500
1934/35	50,000	66,725	1,504
1935/36	109,500	109,714	3,500
1936/37	1,000	142,561	2,718
1937/38	5,000	136,604	2,718
1938/39	5,000	130,554	2,728
1939/40	45,000	152,111	1,621
1940/41	45,000	174,231	2,495
1941/42	40,000	253,153	3,450
1942/43	60,000	209,281	5,964
1943/44	30,000	168,911	6,620
1944/45	10,000	200,270	1,968
1945/46	25,000	255,224	3,728
1946/47	25,000	236,455	3,948
1947/48	25,000	312,215	4,382
1948/49	8,000	404,000	5,868
1949/50	25,000	416,555	7,940
1950/51	65,000	431,580	88,695
1951/52	85,000	925,500	106,190
1952/53	107,000	780,400	122,440
1953/54	163,000	903,500	154,850
[811][812]1954/55	135,000	953,000	169,750
1955/56	75,000	1,215,250	213,300
1956/57	110,000	1,368,500	286,150

NOTES: (a) Up to 1949/50 (inclusive) Subhead C. 2. embraced all forestry field operations including timber conversion in the forests.

Up to 1946/47 (inclusive) the Subhead also included provision for salaries, wages and allowances of Foresters, Forest Foremen, etc.

(b) Up to 1949/50 (inclusive) Subhead C. 3. applied only to the operations of the Department's fixed sawmills; from 1950/51 onwards the Subhead included provision for timber conversion in State Forests.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins: asked the Minister for Agriculture if he will state in respect of each financial year since 1932-33 the amount of money provided in the Vote for his Department under the following heads: (a) agricultural schools and farms, grants to private agricultural schools, veterinary colleges and the University Colleges of Dublin and Cork, (b) improvement of milk production, (c) improvement of live stock, (d) improvement of poultry and egg production, (e) special agricultural schemes, (f) farm buildings scheme and water supplies, (g) land project, (h) ground limestone scheme, (i) bovine tuberculosis eradication scheme, and (j) research work.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Dillon): Following is the information:—

STATEMENT SHOWING THE AMOUNTS PROVIDED IN THE VOTE FOR AGRICULTURE UNDER THE HEADINGS SHOWN FOR EACH OF THE FINANCIAL YEARS 1932/3 TO 1956/7.

Year	Agricultural Schools and Farms, etc.	Improvement of Milk Production	Improvement of Live Stock	Improvement of Poultry and Egg Production	*Special Agricultural Schemes	*Farm Buildings and Water Supplies	*Land Project	*Ground Limestone	Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication	Research Work
	£	£	£	£	£	£	£	£	£	£
1932/3	87,115	27,042	8,595	—	40,935	—	—	—	—	10,733
1933/4	85,904	24,898	6,710	—	39,641	—	—	—	—	10,910
1934/5	83,536	23,752	5,975	—	38,540	—	—	—	—	11,125
1935/6	82,285	23,095	7,535	—	41,337	—	—	—	—	11,523
1936/7	83,955	22,522	8,000	—	39,361	—	—	—	—	11,607
1937/8	90,165	25,158	47,005	—	38,324	—	—	—	—	12,247
1938/9	93,602	24,824	12,980	—	39,872	—	—	—	—	11,808
1939/40	103,650	27,236	13,060	—	40,748	—	—	—	—	12,467
1940/41	100,456	25,586	10,960	—	43,273	—	—	—	—	12,375
1941/2	101,438	26,151	8,670	—	47,365	—	—	—	—	12,282
1942/3	101,738	26,210	7,065	—	43,349	—	—	—	—	13,305
1943/4	106,308	26,053	6,785	—	47,086	—	—	—	—	14,983
1944/5	127,174	25,903	7,940	—	48,304	—	—	—	—	16,882
1945/6	139,922	33,006	11,525	—	51,385	—	—	—	—	26,369
1946/7	147,793	35,803	13,505	—	52,356	—	—	—	—	61,266
1947/8	168,068	36,723	13,355	300	89,083	750	—	—	—	51,980
1948/9	207,272	42,666	12,565	400,000	137,496	250,000	—	—	—	55,315
1949/50	253,688	42,130	14,140	250,000	78,521	74,000	320,000	—	—	59,942
1950/51	284,431	45,971	12,925	350,000	161,070	431,712	3,100,000	—	—	103,980
1951/2	310,435	51,593	14,325	195,000	179,660	511,055	1,713,332	200,000	—	62,063
1952/3	301,993	54,313	18,805	180,000	184,395	478,235	2,463,906	450,000	—	83,666
1953/4	327,927	54,091	17,325	178,000	217,374	480,465	2,861,210	600,000	—	146,653
[813][814]1954/5	368,440	54,599	17,595	352,800	213,855	761,494	2,481,760	600,000	85,000	118,180
1955/6	390,125	55,340	21,975	73,100	275,250	832,966	2,690,610	680,000	262,000	160,873
1956/7	429,658	54,955	22,095	66,227	239,960	871,300	2,691,427	684,000	570,500	188,894

*For the years 1936/7 to 1949/50, inclusive, provision was made in the Employment or Emergency Schemes Votes (accounted for by the Department of Finance and not by my Department) for the following Schemes administered by my Department:—

I the Farm Improvements (including Land Reclamation) Scheme;

II the Seed Distribution Scheme;

III the Lime Distribution Scheme.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins: asked the Minister for Finance if he will state in respect of each year since 1932 the amount of State money provided for capital development schemes under the heads (a) below the line services, and (b) capital services included in the Estimates since 1949.

Minister for Finance (Mr. Sweetman): The appended statement gives the totals of “below the line” issues in each of the years 1931-2 to 1955-6 and of annual expenditure on voted capital services since 1949-50. Prior to 1949-50 capital items included in the Voted Services were not segregated.

Year	“Below the line” Issues exclusive of issues for the redemption of debt	Expenditure on Voted Capital Services
	£	£
1931/2	1,165,470
1932/3	1,605,754
1933/4	896,402
1934/5	469,233
1935/6	1,410,159
1936/7	1,271,329
1937/8	1,288,820
1938/9	11,546,310
1939/40	1,205,181
1940/41	723,502
1941/2	2,919,296
1942/3	1,399,482
1943/4	93,864
1944/5	98,784
1945/6	242,126
1946/7	2,333,102
1947/8	5,530,967
1948/9	9,113,002
1949/50	14,171,474	7,315,376
1950/51	14,075,295	8,086,847
1951/2	22,271,969	9,753,499
1952/3	21,649,350	8,607,489
1953/4	20,104,257	16,363,520
1954/5	16,141,620	14,802,465
1955/6	11,984,532	14,044,234

D'fhiafraigh

Gearóid Mac Pharthaláin: den Aire Rialtais Aitiúil an dtiúrfaidh sé, i leith na n-oibreacha atá luaite aige i bhfreagra a naoi is fiche an t-aonú lá tríochad den mhí seo caite, tuairisc ina n-inseoidh sé láithreacha agus costais na n-oibreacha atá (a) críoehnaithe, (b) ar siúl, agus (c) ceaptha gan bheith tosnaithe.

Aire Rialtais Aitiúil (Pádraig Ó Domhnaill): De bhrí gur ráiteas i bhfoirm táible atá sa bhfreagra, tá socair agam, le cead uait-se a Cheann Comhairle, é a chur isteach sa tuarascáil oifigiúil.

Is é seo a leanas an ráiteas:—

[815][816]Bliain: 1954-55.
Suíomh	Costas Measta	Staid na hOibre
	£
Beanntraighe, Co. Chorcaighe	700	Críochnaithe
Tralimo, Co. Chorcaighe	2,400	Críochnaithe
Ceann Tuirc, Co. Chorcaighe	1,100	Críochnaithe
Góilín, Co. Chorcaighe	2,100	Níor tosnaíodh fós
Baile Chaisleán Bhéara, Co. Chorcaighe	1,400	Níor tosnaíodh fós
Málainn Mhór, Co. Dhún na nGall	40	Críochnaithe
Port Rónáin, Co. Dhún na nGall	1,280	Ar siúl
An Droichead Ur, Co. Dhún na nGall	1,040	Ar siúl
Caladh Ciaráin, Co. na Gaillimhe	1,500	Críochnaithe
Bliain: 1955-56.
Faill Cuach, Co. Chorcaighe	450	Níor tosnaíodh fós
Cuas an Dubhghlais, Co. Chorcaighe	1,000	Níor tosnaíodh fós
An Caladh Thiar, Co. Chorcaighe	660	Níor tosnaíodh fós
Port Uí Choirín, Co. Dhún na nGall	2,250	Níor tosnaíodh fós
Port Inbhir, Co. Dhún na nGall	2,325	Níor tosnaíodh fós
Áill na dTornóg, Co. na Gaillimhe	2,500	Ar siúl
Lochán Beag, Co. na Gaillimhe	300	Níor tosnaíodh fós
An Fód Dubh, Co. Mhuigheo	1,800	Níor tosnaíodh fós
Bliain: 1956-57.
Coillte, Co. an Chláir	1,250	Níor tosnaíodh fós
Colla, Co. Chorcaighe	1,000	Níor tosnaíodh fós
Carraigín an Phosta, Co. Mhuigheo	800	Níor tosnaíodh fós