Dáil Éireann

20/Nov/1957

Prelude

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Department of Social Welfare.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Government Information Bureau.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Threat of War.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Increase in Price of Commodities.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Imports of Floor Covering.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Bacon Exports.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Meat Exports.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Cattle Exports.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Registered Unemployed.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Free Trade Area.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Workmen's Compensation: Insurance Statistics.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Sale and Distribution of Medicinal and Toilet Preparations.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Allocation to Master Bakers.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - E.S.B. Director.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Leinster Coalfield.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Irish Pavilion at Frankfurt Fair.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Position of C.I.E.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - C.I.E. Superannuation Scheme.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Bord na Móna Employees in Kildare.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Price and Profit Control.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Rural Electrification in Waterford.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Rural Electrification in Waterford.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Rural Electrification in Tipperary.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Rural Electrification in Kildare.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Detentions Under Health Act.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Cigarette Advertisements.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Rotunda Hospital: Infants' Unit.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Cork Regional Hospital.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Issue of Medical Cards in Kerry.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Eligibility for Hospital and Specialist Services.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Finance Act, 1957: Division of Issues.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Vacancies in Clerical Officer Grade.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Civil Service Pensions.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Levies and Customs Duties.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Income-Tax Collections.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Inspection of Mayo Pier.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Kildare Employment Grant.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Cleaning of Tipperary River.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Scoileanna i gContae na Gaillimhe.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Solicitors' Remuneration General Order, 1957.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Enforcement of Road Traffic Act.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Cost of Rover and Mercedes Cars.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Increases in Publican's Licence Fees.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Amendment of Rent Restrictions Acts.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Interception of Postal Communications.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Curragh Internment Camp Detainees.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Use of Powers of Detention.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Release of Student.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Representation of Constituencies.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Repair of Cottages.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Kildare Cottages.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Water and Sanitation Grants.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Donegal Housing Schemes.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Unemployment and Sickness Benefits.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Children's Allowances.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Division of North Dublin Lands.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Division of Tipperary Lands.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Afforestation in North Tipperary.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Allocation of Galway Turbary.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Re-erection of Mayo Slip.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Replacement of Achill Jetty.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Greencastle (Donegal) Harbour.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Repair and Extension of Waterford Schools.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Posts and Telegraphs: Public Relations Officer.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Army Retiring Gratuities.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Templemore Barracks: Sewerage Scheme.

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Haulbowline Dockyard: Civilian Apprentices.

Return to Writ—Dublin North (Central). - Introduction of New Member.

Return to Writ—Dublin North (Central). - Bás Aire Talmhaíochta: Rún Comhbhróin.

Return to Writ—Dublin North (Central). - Assignment of Department of Agriculture.

Return to Writ—Dublin North (Central). - Order of Business.

Return to Writ—Dublin North (Central). - Destructive Insects and Pests (Consolidation) Bill, 1957—Message from Seanad.

Return to Writ—Dublin North (Central). - Destructive Insects and Pests (Consolidation) Bill, 1957: Referred to Standing Joint Committee.

Return to Writ—Dublin North (Central). - Gas Regulation Bill, 1957—First Stage.

Return to Writ—Dublin North (Central). - Local Loans Fund (Amendment) Bill, 1957—First Stage.

Return to Writ—Dublin North (Central). - Supplementary Estimate—Leave to Introduce.

Return to Writ—Dublin North (Central). - State Guarantees Act, 1954 (Amendment of Schedule) Order, 1957—Motion of Approval.

Coiste Airgeadais. - An Bille um Thionscail na Gaeltachta, 1957—Rún Airgid.

Coiste Airgeadais. - An Bille um Thionscail na Gaeltachta, 1957—Ceim an Choiste.

Coiste Airgeadais. - Landlord and Tenant (Reversionary Leases) Bill, 1957: Report and Final Stages.

Coiste Airgeadais. - Report of Committee of Selection.

Joint Committee on Standing Orders Relative to Private Business. - Nomination of Chairman.

Joint Committee on Standing Orders Relative to Private Business. - Agricultural Institute Bill, 1957—Second Stage.

Joint Committee on Standing Orders Relative to Private Business. - Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1957—Message from Seanad.

Private Members' Business. - Internees Under the Offences Against the State Acts—Motion (Resumed).

Private Members' Business. - Abolition of Seanad—Motion.

Adjournment Debate. - Sale and Distribution of Medicinal and Toilet Preparations.

Written Answer. - National Nutrition Survey.

[669] Do chuaigh an Ceann Comhairle i gceannas ar 3 p.m.

Paidir.

Prayer.

Dr. Browne:  asked the Taoiseach whether it is proposed to assign the Department of Social Welfare separately to a member of the Government, if necessary by nominating an additional member of the Government, and, if so, when.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach (Donnchadh Ó Briain) (thar cheann An Taoisigh):  It is not felt necessary, and, so, it is not proposed, to make any change in the present arrangement.

Dr. Browne:  asked the Taoiseach if he will state (a) the total estimated annual cost of the Government Information Bureau, (b) the date on which the person who now holds the post of Director of the Bureau was appointed to the post, (c) the salary and emoluments attached to the post, (d) whether the vacancy was advertised in the public Press, (e) whether the appointment was made by the Civil Service Commissioners, and, if not, on whose recommendation it was made, (f) the qualifications, if any, necessary for this post, and whether journalistic or Press experience was required, (g) the special qualifications, if any, of the person appointed, (h) the post previously held by this person, and (i) the name of the person appointed.

Donnchadh Ó Briain (thar cheann An Taoisigh):  The following are replies to the Deputy's queries:—

[670] (a) The total current annual cost of the salaries of the staff at present serving in the Government Information. Bureau is £2,474; it would not be readily practicable to apportion to the bureau its share of expenditure on such items as telegrams, telephones, messenger and cleaning services, incidental expenses and allied services as are attributable to the Vote for the Department of the Taoiseach as a whole.

(b) 10th September, 1957.

(c) Salary, entering at the minimum, on the scale £995 × 30—£1,130 plus the usual percentage additions (equivalent to £1,255-£1,414 fully inclusive); no other emolument.

(d) No.

(e) The person appointed to the position was not selected for appointment by the Civil Service Commissioners; the appointment was made pursuant to the provisions of Section 13 (3) of the Civil Service Commissioners Act, 1956, on my recommendation.

(f) The qualifications are those generally required of a public relations officer, and, in particular, a knowledge and appreciation of the Government's social and economic policy and of the working and activities of the various Departments of State and branches of public administration, and a sense of news values; a knowledge of the Irish language should, I think, also be regarded as essential; journalistic experience, while desirable, would not be essential in the case of a person otherwise adequately qualified.

(g) The person appointed possessed, in a high degree, all the essential qualifications mentioned above; he had served for four years in my office when Leader of the Opposition, for one year and eight months as an unestablished civil servant as private secretary to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government when in charge of Oifig na Gaeltachta agus na gCeantar gCúng and for over five months as an unestablished civil servant as administration officer in the Government Information Bureau.

[671] (h) Administration officer in the Government Information Bureau.

(i) Seán Pádraig Ó hAnnracháin.

Dr. Browne:  Is it not a fact at this time of very great financial stringency, that the Taoiseach deliberately displaced the former holder of this post in order to create for a person, a friend and former employee, this relatively high-paid post and further, does he not agree that this is a clear case of political jobbery at its worst?

The Taoiseach:  I am fully responsible for the appointment. I made it, believing that it was in the interests of the country and in the interests of the Government's work that there should be in that post a man who had all the qualifications which have been mentioned and I believe the man appointed is as good as could be found in the country. For that office you want a person who is able to meet people from all parts of the world, a man who knows the history of this country, who knows the work that the various Departments have to do, a man who is courteous and capable of meeting people who come here, able to deal with journalists and give them the information they require. I made the appointment for that reason and for that reason solely.

Dr. Browne:  The short answer is “no,” but the Taoiseach knows he is not in a position to make it.

Mr. Dillon:  Might I ask the Taoiseach is the gentleman in question writing leading articles for the Irish Press and if he is is it not nearly time he stopped?

The Taoiseach:  I do not think he is writing leading articles——

Mr. Dillon:  Does the Taoiseach know?

The Taoiseach:  I do not know.

Mr. Dillon:  Will the Taoiseach ask him?

The Taoiseach:  I shall ask him.

Mr. Dillon:  If he has been writing [672] them I think he should stop. One man one job.

The Taoiseach:  I agree. I do not think it is true that he is writing articles for the Irish Press and if it is so it will stop.

Mr. McQuillan:  Can we take it that the previous occupant of this post was unsatisfactory in view of that change that has been made?

The Taoiseach:  First of all the history of the office was this. When we were first in Government, the Information Bureau was established in order to prevent inquiries going from one office to another and to make available to the public, in the quickest possible way and with the least inconvenience and disturbance to the Departments, the information they required. It is essential that in that office you have a person who has the full confidence of the Government, because, very often, in order to be able to deal with questions, decisions have sometimes to be anticipated and information of a very confidential character, which could be harmful from the point of view of the State as well as from the point of view of Government policy, could be indiscreetly revealed. That is essential and it was regarded as such by previous Governments, and the questioner can look back upon some of the history, in which event, he will have no difficulty in understanding.

This is a confidential post, as confidential as any other in the Taoiseach's Department, and I regard it as essential therefore that the occupant of this post should be in a position to do his work with the full confidence not merely of the Taoiseach but of every other Department. I said that, if the position is to exist at all, the person in it will have to enjoy the full confidence of the Government and its Head, so that he may be in a position to give information and deal properly with questions asked.

Dr. Browne:  May we take it the previous incumbent of the post did not have the full confidence of the Government?

Mr. O'Sullivan:  The Taoiseach has stressed the necessity for the occupant [673] of the post having such qualifications as integrity, ability and confidence——

The Taoiseach:  Yes.

Mr. O'Sullivan:  Is he inferring in his statement that the new appointee has these qualifications and that the former occupant was lacking in these qualifications?

The Taoiseach:  I have no close personal knowledge of the previous occupant — none. I have personal knowledge of the individual who has been appointed. I know from that personal knowledge of the person appointed that he has in every way the ability and discretion necessary for this post.

Mr. McQuillan:  asked the Taoiseach if he will state, with reference to his statement on 25th July last outlining the reasons for bringing into operation detention and internment without trial, whether any threat of war was made against this country, and, if so, if he will further state (a) the name of the country by which the threat was made, (b) the nature and terms of the threat, and (c) the action taken by the Government in reply.

Donnchadh Ó Briain (thar cheann an Taoisigh):  Nothing in the statement which I issued on the 25th July last implied that any threat of war had been made against this country by any other country, and in fact no such threat was made. The remaining parts of the Deputy's question do not, therefore, arise.

Mr. McQuillan:  We can take it now, as a result of that reply, that there was no threat of war by any other nation and that, therefore, when the Taoiseach made this statement that the possibility of embroilment in war with another country was one of the reasons why he saw fit to bring in Part II of the Offences Against the State Act, there was, in fact, no foundation for that alleged threat of war against this country, according to him.

[674]The Taoiseach:  One can use one's common sense. If attacks are taking place, or if one is attacking somebody else, there is always the danger of retaliation of one kind or another and, therefore, of embroilment. May I ask, in order that it may be word perfect, the Parliamentary Secretary to read out for the House exactly what I said?

Donnchadh Ó Briain:  The Taoiseach said that the activities of certain groups “had already led to loss of life and were likely, if continued, to embroil our people not only in war with another country but in a hateful civil war as well”.

Mr. Norton:  asked the Taoiseach if he will indicate the commodities included in the consumer price index which have increased in price since the 21st March last, or the nearest convenient date, and the amount of the increase in each case.

Donnchadh Ó Briain:  Price data for the consumer price index are collected in respect of mid-February, mid-May, mid-August and mid-November each year. Data for mid-November, 1957, are still in course of compilation and so the only relevant comparison at present available is between mid-February and mid-August this year. Information for this comparison was given in replies to somewhat similar questions asked by Deputy Desmond on 23rd October, 1957, and Deputy Kyne on 29th October, 1957, to which I would refer the Deputy.

Mr. Tierney:  asked the Taoiseach if he will state in respect of 1954, 1955, 1956, and to the latest available date in 1957 the total quantity imported of (a) rubber floor covering, (b) linoleum felt base floor covering, and (c) linoleum, heavy inlaid type, and further, the total amount of money paid for such imports in each period.

Donnchadh Ó Briain:  I propose, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, to circulate in the Official Report a statement showing the quantity and value of (i) linoleum and similar products and (ii) rubber floor coverings [675] imported in each year 1954-56 and in the first nine months of 1957. Particulars of imports are brought to account by reference to the commodity descriptions specified in the Official Import List and the descriptions shown in the statement are the nearest official equivalents to the descriptions in the question. Separate particulars for items (b) and (c) in the question are not, I regret, available.

Following is the statement:—

IMPORTS of Linoleum and similar products and rubber floor coverings in each year 1954-56, and in the period January-September, 1957.

Period Linoleum and similar products Rubber floor coverings
Quantity Value Quantity Value
sq. yd. £ cwt. £
1954 1,847,351 459,609 5,600 52,861
1955 1,956,585 509,419 4,984 49,213
1956 1,775,306 467,776 4,897 53,949
1957 931,183 247,589 2,914 26,520
(Jan.-Sept.)

Mr. Dillon:  asked the Taoiseach if he will state the quantity of bacon exported to date in 1957, and the value of these exports.

Donnchadh Ó Briain:  146,910 cwt. of bacon worth £2,059,829 was exported in the first nine months of 1957.

Mr. Dillon:  The Parliamentary Secretary has not got convenient the corresponding figures for 1956?

Donnchadh Ó Briain:  No. The Deputy did not ask for those figures.

Mr. Dillon:  I did not wish to embarrass the Parliamentary Secretary.

Donnchadh Ó Briain:  If anything happened, it follows that the Deputy was the cause of it.

Mr. Dillon:  asked the Taoiseach if he will state the quantity and the value of (a) carcase meat, and (b) tinned and open pack meat exported to date in 1957.

[676]Donnchadh Ó Briain:  I propose, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, to circulate in the Official Report a statement showing, by reference to the commodity descriptions in the official export list, the quantity and value of domestic exports of meat and meat preparations in the first nine months of 1957. These descriptions afford the fullest statistical information available on types of packing used.

Following is the statement:—

Domestic Exports of Meat and Meat Preparations January-September, 1957.

Description Quantity Value
cwt. £
Meat, fresh, chilled or frozen Beef and veal
Fresh or chilled 180,070 1,981,836
Frozen, bone-in 13,986 120,370
Frozen, boneless 134,934 1,669,899
Mutton and lamb, fresh or chilled 76,336 1,065,681
Mutton and lamb, frozen 168 2,355
Pork 9,630 134,900
Poultry, dead
Turkeys 2,311 29,244
Geese 250 3,101
Ducks 475 4,489
Guinea fowl 589 10,284
Chickens 7,221 122,447
Old fowl 28,688 356,128
Rabbits, dead 224 1,871
Game, dead 238 2,646
Edible offals except sausage casings and gut 39,438 378,732
Other 82 743
Meat, dried, cured, salted smoked or cooked
Pig products
Bacon 146,910 2,059,829
Hams 32,568 628,117
Other
Beef and veal 474 12,213
Other, including offal 22 636
Sausages of all kinds not in airtight containers
Pork 26,258 300,879
Other 4,694 97,417
Meat and meat preparations in air-tight containers
Beef, only 109,746 1,481,994
Ham, only 2,319 64,271
Other 22,341 338,840
Natural sausage casings and gut therefor 6,517 65,973
Meat preparations, n.e.s. 7,557 101,033

Mr. Dillon:  asked the Taoiseach if he will state the number of cattle exported from Ireland in 1957.

[677]Donnchadh Ó Briain:  The number of live cattle exported from Ireland (exclusive of the Six Counties) in the first nine months of 1957 was 697,321.

Mr. Dillon:  The Parliamentary Secretary has not convenient the corresponding figures for last year?

Donnchadh Ó Briain:  No. The Deputy did not ask for them.

Mr. Dillon:  Again, I was afraid of embarrassing the Parliamentary Secretary.

Donnchadh Ó Briain:  If he had asked for them, I would have given them to him.

Mr. Dillon:  The Minister for Lands could supply them.

Mr. Norton:  asked the Taoiseach if he will state the number of persons registered as unemployed on the last Saturday in October at the Athy, Kildare, Maynooth, and Edenderry branch employment offices.

Donnchadh Ó Briain:  The number of persons on the live register on the last Saturday in October (26th October, 1957) at the specified local offices of the Department of Social Welfare were: Athy, 77; Kildare, 147; Maynooth, 133; Edenderry, 181.

Mr. D. Costello:  asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether, prior to making a decision as to this country's membership of a Free Trade Area, the Government will issue a White Paper for the information of the public.

Mr. D. Costello:  asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will make a statement on the present stage of the negotiations for the creation of a Free Trade Area, and, in particular, on the result of the recent meetings in Paris of Ministers at the O.E.E.C.

Mr. D. Costello:  asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state whether the British Government has indicated that, in the event of the [678] creation of a Free Trade Area, the Anglo-Irish Trade Agreements may have to be terminated or revised; and, if not, whether he considers that the termination or revision of the agreements may be necessary as a result of the creation of a Free Trade Area.

Mr. D. Costello:  asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state (a) the number of persons likely to lose employment as a result of the establishment of a Free Trade Area, and (b) the number of persons likely to obtain employment as a result of its establishment.

Mr. D. Costello:  asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether his Department has carried out any survey of the likely effects on (a) Irish industry, and (b) industrial employment of the establishment of a Free Trade Area, and, if so, if he will make the result of such survey available to members of the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Mr. D. Costello:  asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will make a statement on the purpose and outcome of the recent talks between members of the Irish and British Governments.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. S. Lemass):  With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 together.

The Inter-Governmental Committee which was established by the Council of the O.E.E.C. on 17th October, 1957, to pursue negotiations towards the creation of a European Free Trade Area met in Paris on 14th, 15th and 16th November. A variety of matters pertaining to the Free Trade Area project were discussed by the committee and arrangements were made for further meetings before the end of the month.

The discussions in the committee and in the various subsidiary committees set up by the O.E.E.C. have not yet reached the stage at which it would be possible to indicate precisely the form which the convention establishing the area will take. The recent meetings in [679] Paris have confirmed that there is a general desire on the part of all member countries of the O.E.E.C. to bring to realisation the concept of a Free Trade Area in Europe and to find workable and acceptable solutions of the not inconsiderable problems which have to be solved before this objective can be achieved. Some of these problems have been referred to working parties and groups of experts and the reports of these various bodies will be considered by the Inter-Governmental Committee in due course.

Ireland is represented on the Inter-Governmental Committee and on all the groups which are examining aspects of the Free Trade Area proposals which may affect the country's interest.

As I have already informed the Dáil, the Government intend to continue the practice of circulating memoranda on developments in relation to the Free Trade Area proposals as occasion arises.

As the Deputy will appreciate, it would not be possible to make a realistic assessment of the consequences which the setting up of the area may have for industry and employment, until the nature of the obligations which the country would have to assume on joining the area is known.

When full information on the terms attaching to our membership of the Free Trade Area is available, the House and the country will be fully informed.

The meetings with members of the British Government which were held on 12th and 13th November were arranged for the purpose of discussing the implication for trade between the two countries of the position which had been reached in the negotiations for a Free Trade Area. At those meetings arrangements were made for future consultations on developments in the Free Trade Area negotiations which might have any bearing on the trading relations between this country and Britain. It is not possible to say at this stage whether amendments to the Anglo-Irish Trade Agreements will be involved.

[680]Mr. Dillon:  Was any special significance to be attached to the Minister's statement on his return from Paris that it now appears that agricultural commodities will be included in the Free Trade arrangement? Does that indicate a change?

Mr. S. Lemass:  Yes. I expressed what was a personal judgment, having listened to the discussions on that subject at Paris, that agricultural products will be included in the area on the basis of some special régime, that is, on a different basis from industrial products. I think that judgment will prove to be correct, but, of course, the matter is only at the very beginning of the negotiation process.

Mr. Dillon:  Are we to take from that that it is the Minister's opinion that the whole concept of the Free Trade Area as distinct from the common market will disappear and that there will be then a common market which will include not only the six senior powers but all the other members of the Free Trade Area as well?

Mr. S. Lemass:  I could not express an opinion on that. The position is that tentative proposals to form a basis for discussion in relation to the possible inclusion of agriculture within the scope of the agreement will be submitted to the committee at some time. The indications are that they are not likely to be submitted before January next.

Mr. Dillon:  Will there be any opportunity of discussing this question between the time the Government will find itself required to negotiate and the time of making a decision? Will the Dáil have any opportunity of discussing the general question before that?

Mr. S. Lemass:  We had a discussion here during which I indicated the difficulty of arranging for a Dáil discussion until we had some definite proposition to consider. We are, of course, keeping in close consultation with the representatives of the various economic interests in the country, who are also being kept informed of the progress of negotiations. As [681] soon as even tentative proposals relating to agricultural products are available there will be consultations regarding those also, although I expressed the view that we are still quite a long way from the drafting of an agreement. I see no difficulty in keeping the House informed regarding these proposals when they reach the stage at which they can be regarded as definitive and, of course, if at any time there should be a desire to discuss them here, arrangements will be made for such discussion.

Mr. Dillon:  Perhaps the Government will circulate a memorandum relating to the situation.

Mr. Norton:  I understood the Minister to say that the Government would circulate memoranda from time to time.

Mr. S. Lemass:  That is right.

Mr. Norton:  Would the Minister say to whom such memoranda will be circulated and will it be possible for the House to obtain copies?

Mr. S. Lemass:  Yes. The Deputy will understand that a mere factual memorandum would not give a great deal of information. It is only possible at the present time to give fuller information on the basis of some personal judgment as to the significance of events. The circulation of factual memoranda indicating what has happened or what further arrangements for negotiations have been made is no problem at all. I would like to consider more fully what can be circulated arising out of the present meeting when that meeting is concluded. The meeting has only adjourned for the time being. The agenda set for it was not completed and the committee will meet again next week to complete the agenda. At that stage it should be possible to give a statement of the position reached in the course of the negotiations, which will be in complete accordance with the facts, even though I would hesitate at this stage to express a personal judgment on the significance of the events.

[682]Mr. Norton:  Would the Minister arrange then for that factual statement to be circulated at least to Deputies who are interested?

Mr. S. Lemass:  Certainly.

Mr. J.A. Costello:  Would the Minister consider if it would be possible to circulate, at least to leaders of Parties, a record of the discussions which have taken place?

Mr. S. Lemass:  There is no record. Discussions are completely informal and without any records being made.

Mr. Dillon:  The Minister realises that his announcement that agriculture is likely to be included marks quite a revolutionary development in the whole situation, a development of which we have no information at all. I fully appreciate the difficulty of providing specific information while negotiations are proceeding, but would the Minister consider some means of giving us some information, subject to all the reservations he has mentioned, as to why or how he came to the conclusion that this revolutionary new departure is highly probable.

Mr. S. Lemass:  It was certainly decided to consider the inclusion of agricultural products within the scope of the agreement. There were many reservations as to how that should be done. The position is that the Secretariat of the Organisation is to prepare a series of proposals for consideration at some stage by the Ministerial Committee. The indication was that those proposals would not be available for consideration before January. When these proposals are available, provided people are prepared to accept them solely as proposals prepared as a basis for discussion, it may be that they can be made available to interested Deputies. I make that statement with certain reservations because sometimes the documentation coming from O.E.E.C. is indicated to be of a confidential nature; but, to the extent that we are at liberty to disclose the nature of the proposals, we shall do so.

Mr. Dillon:  The Minister, of course, [683] appreciates that we are the only nation in Europe with a trade agreement of a very particular character with the British Government and that our position, therefore, in that respect is unique in Europe and we would want to be mighty circumspect before we identify ourselves with other countries which have not got the same type of agreement and very much resent the fact that they have not got it and would like us to lose it.

Mr. S. Lemass:  I am very conscious of that fact and I hope I shall be circumspect.

General Mulcahy:  In view of the Minister's difficulty and the probable delay and also in view of the size of the lettering with which the Irish Press announced over his statement that this would mean more Government trading, would the Minister be able at this particular moment to throw some light on what is meant by the suggestion that “this will mean more Government trading”?

Mr. S. Lemass:  Again, as the Deputy will have noted, I was expressing a personal opinion that in so far as the likelihood appears to be——

Mr. Dillon:  But the Minister is not an inter-Party Government!

Mr. S. Lemass:  I was expressing a pensonal opinion of what was happening at Paris, not in the Government. I was expressing the view that in so far as the idea seems to be developing of having a controlled market in agricultural products rather than free trade, it was likely that that would involve some extension of Government trading.

General Mulcahy:  Did the Minister's personal opinion include more Government trading by the Irish Government as well as other Governments?

Mr. S. Lemass:  Oh, no. We have taken no final decision at all upon our attitude either to the main proposal or to any specific proposal relating to agricultural products. When we receive proposals we will consider [684] them and decide whether we should support, oppose or seek to amend them. Certainly no decision has been taken, as far as we are concerned, upon the form of agreement in relation to agricultural products that we would accept. We have not even got the tentative proposals.

Mr. Norton:  asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state in respect of each of the last three years the total premium income received by insurance companies under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, and the amounts expended in (a) compensation, (b) administration, and (c) legal and medical fees.

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

Following is the statement:—

The information furnished to my Department relates to employers' liability insurance business (including workmen's compensation) carried on by insurance companies. The particulars for the latest three years are as follows:—

1954 1955 1956
£ £ £
Premium Income 1,569,463 1,770,817 2,127,427
Claims (including increase in outstanding liability) 826,454 1,022,737 1,153,700
Administrative expenses (including commission) 553,659 598,389 697,728

Medical and legal expenses are included in the claims paid and separate figures are not available.

The figures for the year 1956 are provisional.

Dr. Browne:  asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state the total cost to the State of the holding of public sittings, High Court [685] proceedings, and the appeal to the Supreme Court arising out of the inquiry of the Fair Trade Commission, into the sale and distribution of patent medicines, infant foods, and medicinal and toilet preparations whose recommendations he has rejected.

Mr. S. Lemass:  It is not practicable to segregate the cost of the holding of the public sittings in connection with this inquiry from the cost of other functions carried out by the Fair Trade Commission.

As regards the High Court proceedings taken against the commission by the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland and the subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court, it will be recalled that, in both cases, judgment with costs was awarded to the commission. These costs, when taxed, will be recoverable by the commission from the prosecutors.

Dr. Browne:  asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether, in view of the fact that, in not giving an explanation within the statutory period of three months for his refusal to accept the recommendations of the Fair Trade Commission inquiry into the sale and distribution of patent medicines, infant food, and medicinal and toilet preparations, he did not comply with the provisions of subsection (5) of Section 9 of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, he will state what steps he now proposes to take in the matter.

Mr. S. Lemass:  On 3rd July last, I tabled a statement in both Houses of the Oireachtas indicating the reasons for my decision not to make an Order on the lines recommended by the Fair Trade Commission in their report of the inquiry held into the supply and distribution of medical and toilet preparations and infant foods. I explained in that statement the circumstances in which I did not find it possible to comply with the statutory requirement that the statement should be laid before each House of the Oireachtas within three months of the receipt of the report from the commission. I have nothing to add to what I then said on the subject.

[686]Dr. Browne:  This inquiry, which was a most elaborate and costly inquiry, submitted its report in December, 1956. The failure of the Minister and his predecessor to accept the recommendations or publish a statement as to why they would not accept them entailed a breach of the law. Does the Minister not accept that he has broken the law in not either accepting the recommendations or making a statement as to why he did not accept them? He had the report from December until July in his Department and he waited until July, when the House had just risen, to make his statement, and he then refused to accept the recommendations of the commission.

An Ceann Comhairle:  The Deputy is making a speech, of course, by means of a question.

Dr. Browne:  Is it not a fact that the recommendations of the commission, seven in number, represented an attempt to deal with the rings in this trade? Will the Minister not take any action——

An Ceann Comhairle:  The Deputy is not asking a question.

Dr. Browne:  ——to deal in an alternative way with the malpractices that exist in this trade? Is he going to allow these restrictive practices to continue?

Mr. Loughman:  As a member of the profession concerned, I want to ask if it is in order for the Deputy to talk about malpractices in a very honourable profession?

Dr. Browne:  Will the Minister answer my question? Does he intend to take any action to end the restrictive practices in this trade?

Mr. S. Lemass:  In so far as the Deputy's supplementary is relevant to the question on the Order Paper, as far as I am concerned — my predecessor will have to answer for himself—I became Minister on the 20th March. I found that I was expected not merely to study the report but to come to some conclusion and announce my conclusion [687] within a week. I declined to do so.

Dr. Browne:  The Minister did it in regard to the subsidies quickly enough.

Mr. S. Lemass:  It would be preposterous to expect any Minister to reach a decision—

Dr. Browne:  Will the Minister say——

Mr. S. Lemass:  If the Deputy does not want a reply, he will not get it.

Mr. Norton:  The receiving of the report was one thing, the publication of the report was another thing, and as far as I was concerned the statutory period for deciding had not expired at the time the previous Government left office. There was still time after the last general election for the Minister for Industry and Commerce to take a decision if the document had, in the meantime, been available in a printed form for consideration by the Government.

Mr. S. Lemass:  That is true. I had one week in which to consider it and I had a lot of other things to do in that week.

Dr. Browne:  That is clearly so much nonsense and an evasion of the Minister's responsibility to deal with what this elaborate and costly inquiry showed——

An Ceann Comhairle:  The Deputy is not asking a question.

Dr. Browne:  ——were malpractices in this trade.

Mr. Loughman:  That is a statement, not a question.

Dr. Browne:  Will the Minister take no steps to deal with this problem?

An Ceann Comhairle:  Question No. 25.

Dr. Browne:  With your permission, Sir, I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

An Ceann Comhairle:  I shall communicate [688] with the Deputy in the course of the afternoon.

Dr. Browne:  asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state what steps he proposes to take in regard to the declared objective of the Irish Drug Association of regulating from time to time and maintaining minimum retail prices to be charged for patent medicines, baby foods, proprietary articles, drugs and medicines, and the compounding of prescriptions, and for such other articles as are sold by members, which practice, in the opinion of the Fair Trade Commission, should be prohibited.

Dr. Browne:  asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether, in view of Fair Trade Commission's findings in regard to the sale and distribution of patent medicines, baby foods, and proprietary preparations that the collective action being taken by wholesalers for the enforcement of resale price maintenance rings was likely to lead to an unreasonable restriction on the supply of goods, and could lead to an injustice to particular traders, and should be prohibited, he will take the necessary steps to safeguard the welfare and interests of parents and of infants who are one section of the public seriously affected by these price rings and agreements.

Dr. Browne:  asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce what steps he proposes to take to insist on the discontinuance by chemists of the coding practice in relation to prescriptions which, in the opinion of the Fair Trade Commission, promotes uniformity of price, may induce a chemist to charge a higher price than he might otherwise charge and should be prohibited.

Dr. Browne:  asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether, in view of the fact established by the Fair Trade Commission that resale prices of practically all proprietary medicines, infant foods and toilet preparations are fixed or suggested by the individual manufacturer, he will take the necessary steps to establish the free competition in prices said to be indispensable to the effective operation of [689] the private enterprise economic system of trading.

Dr. Browne:  asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether, in view of the fact that infant baby foods, because of a price-fixing agreement, may not be sold at less than a gross profit of 50 per cent. he will take steps to ensure that free competition in prices will be allowed to operate in respect of this particularly necessary commodity.

Dr. Browne:  asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether, in view of the Fair Trade Commission findings that persons, who are unwilling to operate a price-fixing ring in the distribution and retailing of patent medicines, infant foods, and medicinal and toilet preparations, are, in effect, denied access to supplies of these commodities for sale to the public, he will state what steps he proposes to take to end this unjust practice.

Mr. S. Lemass:  With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 together.

On 3rd July last, I tabled a statement in both Houses of the Oireachtas indicating the reasons for my decision not to make an Order on the lines recommended by the Fair Trade Commission in their report of the inquiry held into the supply and distribution of medical and toilet preparations and infant foods. I said in that statement that, having studied the commission's report, I was of opinion that an Order on the lines suggested by the commission would not entail any marked alteration in the manner in which the trade is at present conducted, and that I did not, therefore, propose to make any Order. I emphasised, however, that this decision on my part was not to be taken as signifying approval of any practice, the prohibition of which was recommended by the commission or as in any way limiting the commission's statutory power to keep the position in the trade under review and to make fair trading rules or hold another public inquiry in relation to the supply and distribution of the goods concerned if, in the opinion of the commission, efforts to intensify [690] restrictions or other circumstances at any time so warranted. I have nothing to add to this statement.

Dr. Esmonde:  asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will indicate when the money allocated in the Budget will be made available to the master bakers for distribution.

Mr. S. Lemass:  It is proposed to distribute the moneys allocated to the master bakers on the basis of their purchases of bakers' flour in the critical period. Certified returns of the sales of bakers' flour have, accordingly, been sought from the flour millers, flour wholesalers and factors.

When complete returns have been furnished and examined, payments will be made as speedily as possible of the amounts found to be due.

Dr. Esmonde:  I think I am right in saying that the Minister is waiting for a statement from two associations, the Irish Association of Master Bakers and the Guild of Master Bakers. When the money is ultimately being distributed would he bear in mind the fact that quite a considerable number of bakers in this country are not members of that organisation?

Mr. S. Lemass:  Yes, but I think the Deputy is aware that there are certain counter claims which have to be discussed with the associations.

Dr. Esmonde:  I appreciate that, but I would ask the Minister to bear the other factor in mind.

Dr. Browne:  asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether he proposes to appoint a non-technical part-time director to the E.S.B., and, if so, if he will state the special qualification, if any, needed for such a post, and the name of the person to be so appointed.

Mr. S. Lemass:  Members of the E.S.B. are appointed by the Government, but no decision has yet been taken as to the filling of the two vacancies which exist on the board.

[691]Mr. Crotty:  asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether arrangements have been made for the carrying out of a survey of the Leinster coalfield, and, if not, whether he is in a position to state when such a survey is likely to be made.

Mr. S. Lemass:  As already announced, arrangements are being made for the carrying out of a survey of the Leinster coalfield. It is anticipated that the work will commence next spring.

Mr. Tierney:  asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state (a) the original cost of the Irish pavilion at the Frankfurt Trade Fair, Germany; (b) the cost of the recent renovations carried out to the pavilion; (c) the personnel engaged in the pavilion during the recent autumn fair and their qualifications; (d) how many exhibitors took part in the recent autumn fair; and (e) what each exhibitor paid for space in the pavilion.

Mr. S. Lemass:  The original cost of the Irish pavilion at the Frankfurt Trade Fair was £8,347. The accounts for the recent renovations carried out in the pavilion are not yet completed, but the total is expected to be about £2,500.

The official personnel engaged in the pavilion during the recent autumn fair consisted of one officer of the Foreign Trade Section of my Department, in a supervisory capacity, assisted by one officer from the Department of Agriculture with a knowledge of German, together with one locally recruited office assistant/interpreter.

Twenty-eight exhibitors took part in the recent fair. I have no information as to the amount paid by individual exhibitors for space in the pavilion, as this was a matter for arrangement between the exhibitors and the firm which provided the display units. No charge under this head was made by my Department.

Mr. Norton:  asked the Minister for [692] Industry and Commerce when the expects to be in a position to make a statement on the Government's policy in respect of C.I.E. arising out of the recent report of the committee on internal transport.

Mr. S. Lemass:  I hope to make a statement to the Dáil on this matter next week.

Mr. Norton:  Would the Minister kindly say whether the statement will be made in connection with the Supplementary Estimate?

Mr. S. Lemass:  That is my intention.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan:  asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state the present position regarding the proposed amending superannuation scheme for certain employees of C.I.E., submitted to his Department on 19th October, 1957.

Mr. S. Lemass:  The amending superannuation scheme for regular wages staff of C.I.E. was confirmed by me on the 31st October, 1957. Copies of the scheme were presented to both Houses of the Oireachtas on the following day and public notice appeared in the daily newspapers on the 2nd November.

Mr. Norton:  asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state the number of persons employed by Bord na Móna in County Kildare whose services were terminated since August last.

Mr. S. Lemass:  I am informed by Bord na Móna that the number of persons whose services were terminated by them in County Kildare since August last is 170. The board state that all but three of these were seasonal workers whose services would ordinarily come to an end with the termination of harvesting operations.

Mr. Norton:  asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will indicate the commodities which have been released from price or profit control since 21st March, 1957.

[693]Mr. S. Lemass:  At various dates since 21st March, 1957, statutory control over prices or profit margins has been revoked in the case of the following commodities: bacon, bread, flour and wheatenmeal, butter, cigarettes and tobacco, cloth, clothing and knitting wool, matches, perambulators, thread, and stout and porter in areas outside the County of Dublin, the County Boroughs of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford and the Borough of Galway.

Mr. Ormonde:  asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if the E.S.B. will take steps to extend rural electrification to the Kilwatermoy area, Tallow, County Waterford.

Mr. T. Lynch:  asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state the position regarding the extension of the rural electrification scheme in the Kilwatermoy-Tallow district, County Waterford; and whether the area has been selected for development.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Bartley):  I propose with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle to take Questions Nos. 33 and 34 together.

I am informed by the E.S.B. that the Kilwatermoy area which includes the district of Tallow has been considered for selection by the board on a number of occasions but has not so far been selected as the returns for the area did not compare favourably with those for other areas awaiting development in the board's Cork No. II district. The area will be reconsidered by the board in due course and the decision of the board will depend on how the returns then compare with those for other areas awaiting development in the Cork No. II district.

Mr. Ormonde:  asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if the E.S.B will take steps to extend rural electrification to the Carroll's Cross and Newtown districts, County Waterford.

Mr. Bartley:  I am informed by the E.S.B. that the Carroll's Cross rural [694] area, which includes Newtown, has been considered for selection on a number of occasions but has not, so far, been selected, as the returns did not compare favourably with those for other areas awaiting development in the Waterford district. The area will be reconsidered in due course and the decision of the board will depend on how the returns then compare with those for other areas awaiting development in the Waterford district.

Mr. Fanning:  asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce when the E.S.B. will extend the rural electrification scheme to the Lisduff and Dunkerrion area, Roscrea, County Tipperary.

Mr. Bartley:  I am informed by the E.S.B. that the Moneygall area which includes Lisduff and Dunkerrion has been considered for selection by the board on a number of occasions but has not so far been selected as the returns for the area did not compare favourably with those for other areas awaiting development in the board's Portlaoighise district. The area will be reconsidered by the board in due course and the decision of the board will depend on how the returns then compare with those for other areas awaiting development in the Portlaoighise district.

Mr. Norton:  asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state when the E.S.B. propose to extend the rural electrification scheme to Derrymullen, Robertstown, County Kildare.

Mr. Bartley:  I am informed by the E.S.B. that Derrymullen is situated in the Allen rural area to which supply has been extended for some years past under the rural electrification scheme. The board state that when this area was being connected, the householders in the Derrymullen district refused to accept supply. They have now applied for connection and they will be notified shortly by the board of the charges involved. If the charges quoted are acceptable to the householders, the [695] board expect to be in a position to extend supply within 12 months.

Dr. Browne:  asked the Minister for Health if he will state the number of persons, if any, compulsorily detained and isolated under Section 38 (1) of the Health Act, 1947, since its enactment.

Minister for Health (Mr. MacEntee):  The number of persons detained and isolated under the provisions of Section 38 of the Health Act, 1947, as amended by Section 35 of the Health Act, 1953, since the enactment of the Health Act, 1947, is one.

Dr. Browne:  asked the Minister for Health whether, in view of the correlation established between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, he proposes to take such steps as are necessary to restrict the continuous misleading advertisements in the Press, and otherwise, directed towards the promotion and increase of the dangerous cigarette smoking habit which constitutes a danger to public health.

Mr. MacEntee:  I have no power under existing legislation and I do not propose to seek power to restrict advertisements inserted in the Press by cigarette manufacturers which, generally speaking, cannot reasonably be described as misleading. Moreover, an increase in cigarette smoking, while it may have deleterious effects on the health of the individuals concerned, does not, I feel, constitute a danger to the public health.

As already indicated, however, I propose to make a statement at a suitable opportunity, directing attention to the correlation which appears to have been established between excessive cigarette smoking and lung cancer, so that each smoker or potential smoker, in making up his mind as to his attitude towards the habit, will do so in the knowledge of the facts recently brought to light.

Dr. Browne:  Does the Minister not agree that the occasional and rather diffident reference to the connection between lung cancer and cigarette [696] smoking at best is greatly outweighed by the advertising of the cigarette manufacturers? Would he not accept the misleading character of these advertisements, containing references such as are in to-day's paper, that the cigarettes mentioned are “kindly to the throat”, when not only may they cause cancer of the throat but also cancer of the lung?

Mr. MacEntee:  I hesitate to pass judgment on the matter to which the Deputy has referred. I do not smoke; therefore I do not know whether cigarettes are kind to the throat or not. Sometimes my throat does not feel too good, even though I am not a smoker. The Deputy has asked me whether I do not think that my reference to this matter has been outweighed by the weight of the advertisements which appear in the Press in favour of particular brands of cigarettes. I am afraid that the advertisements do perhaps make a greater impression on the public mind than my words, but that is because people smoke and want to smoke and want to get the cigarettes which please them best.

Dr. Browne:  What about advertisements which are misleading?

Mr. MacEntee:  I shall not set myself up as judge on that.

Dr. Browne:  asked the Minister for Health if he will state (a) the estimated cost of providing the alternative infants' unit at the Rotunda Hospital, and (b) the amount of such cost to be borne (i) from Hospitals' Trust Funds, (ii) from Exchequer Funds, and (iii) by the Rotunda Hospital authorities from their own resources.

Mr. MacEntee:  An accurate estimate of the cost of erecting new buildings in replacement of the existing temporary pædiatric units on the Garden of Remembrance site has not yet been arrived at, but it is expected to be approximately £50,000. The cost will be borne by the Hospitals' Trust Fund.

Mr. Corry:  asked the Minister for Health if he will state (1) the total [697] amount expended to date on the proposed Cork Regional Hospital in respect of (a) site acquisition, (b) site development, (c) architects' fees for various plans and specifications since the site was first acquired, and (d) any other expenditure incurred in respect of the hospital; (2) the amount of the total expenditure borne by (a) the local authority, (b) the State, and (c) Hospital Trust Fund grants; (3) the amount due at present to the local authority (South Cork Board of Public Assistance) in respect of such expenditure, and when payment will be effected; and (4) the present intentions of his Department in regard to the hospital, and whether it is intended to carry out or abandon the project.

Mr. MacEntee:  According to the latest return, furnished by the South Cork Board of Public Assistance on the 7th October, 1957, the total amount expended to that date on the Cork Regional Hospital project was approximately £56,881 against which must be offset a sum of approximately £1,340 received in respect of lettings of site lands. This amount is apportioned as follows under the headings mentioned by the Deputy:—

£
Site acquisition 7,022
Site development 8,903
Architects' fees 33,000
Other expenditure 7,956

The figure of other expenditure includes fees paid to the quantity surveyor, consultant engineers and the salary of the clerk of works.

As the project is a regional one, the full amount of the expenditure incurred by the local authority is being recouped from the Hospitals' Trust Fund. A small balance of grant of approximately £150 is due to the local authority. This amount will be included in a further payment to be made when the next application for an instalment of grant is received from the local authority.

As the Deputy is probably aware, I am engaged in a comprehensive review of the financial position in relation to the future hospital building programme. When this review has been completed, I shall inform the South Cork Board of Public Assistance of my [698] decision in regard to the Cork Regional Hospital project.

Mr. Corry:  Does the Minister not consider it high time for a decision, after 20 years, during which the only people who have been paid are the architects, who have got £33,000 for their drawings on paper?

Mr. MacEntee:  The decision would be quite an easy one if I were in a position to say that the job could go ahead. I have no money and I do not know whether, if it did go ahead, its erection would be received with general approval in Cork.

Mr. Corry:  Has the Department sanctioned the expenditure of further money on that site within the last 12 months?

Mr. MacEntee:  It may have.

Mr. Corry:  It may have, certainly.

Mr. Desmond:  When coming to a decision, will the Minister bear in mind the fact that at the present time it is practically impossible for a patient to get a bed in any of the hospitals in the City of Cork, owing to overcrowding?

Mr. Corry:  Will the Minister also bear in mind that when this has been built he can take the whole population in there?

Mr. MacEntee:  I hope they will not take it as much as that to heart.

Mr. Moloney:  asked the Minister for Health if he will state the table of income respectively applicable to (a) wage earners, and (b) small landholders in County Kerry on the basis of which a medical card under the general medical registration service is issued by the Kerry County Council health authority, and if he will give comparable tables in respect of Counties Limerick and Cork.

Mr. MacEntee:  The determination of eligibility for general medical services is a matter for the appropriate health authorities and I have no functions in the matter. The statutory provision under which the services are provided, that is, Section 14 of the Health Act, 1953, envisages that each application [699] for a medical card should be considered on its merits and health authorities have already been informed by my Department that they should not seek to impose a set scale of means for the purpose of determining eligibility.

Information is not available in my Department regarding any general standards which may be used by the health authorities mentioned by the Deputy.

Dr. Browne:  asked the Minister for Health if he will state, in order to clarify the present doubtful position, whether all persons whose yearly means are less than £600, and their dependents, are eligible for the hospital and specialist services supplied under the Health Act, 1953, as amended by the 1957 Act.

Mr. MacEntee:  I am not aware that any doubt exists. All persons whose yearly means, as defined in the Act, are less than £600, and their dependents, are entitled to avail themselves of the services referred to in the question, in accordance with the arrangements made by their health authority for the provision of such services.

Mr. Sweetman:  asked the Minister for Finance if he is aware that the effect of Section 4 of the Finance Act, 1957, may be to require that certain issues be divided into those shares that receive the benefit under that section and those that do not, and, if so, what action he proposes to take in reference thereto.

Minister for Finance (Dr. Ryan):  Section 4 of the Finance Act, 1957, was designed to amend Section 7 of the Finance Act, 1932, the fundamental purpose of which was to provide for tax relief in relation to securities issued by Irish companies after the 4th August, 1932. The force of this year's amendment was to remove, so far as such securities issued by Irish manufacturing companies were concerned, [700] certain restrictive conditions which stood in the original enactment and which had to be complied with before the relief became allowable. I am not aware of any cases in which, as regards such securities, the amending legislation will require subdivision into different categories. The effect of the new Act, from which very substantial benefits will flow, will rather be that subdivisions of such securities will no longer be necessary.

Mr. Sweetman:  If I give the Minister privately the names of the companies concerned — I do not want to mention them across the House — will he look into the matter?

Dr. Ryan:  I shall.

Mr. Norton:  asked the Minister for Finance if he will state the number of vacancies on the clerical officer grade in each Department.

Dr. Ryan:  The particulars requested by the Deputy are in the form of a tabular statement which, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, will be included in the Official Report.

The statement is as follows:—

Department Number of vacancies in authorised establishment of Clerical Officers on 9th November, 1957
President's Establishment Nil
Houses of the Oireachtas Nil
Department of the Taoiseach 2
Office of the Comptroller and Auditor-General 8
Department of Finance 22(including 4 Departmental Clerical Officer vacancies)
Agriculture 16
Justice 3
Local Government Nil
Education 4
Lands 46
Gaeltacht 1
Industry and Commerce 4
Posts and Telegraphs 40
Defence 11
External Affairs 1
Social Welfare 16
Health Nil

[701]Mr. Norton:  asked the Minister for Finance if he will state the average duration of pensions payable to civil servants who retire at (a) 60, and (b) 65 years of age.

Dr. Ryan:  Statistics of the duration of Civil Service pensions are not compiled. An examination has, however, been made of all cases of Civil Service pensioners who died in the four years ended 1st April, 1957. The average duration of pensions found among the cases examined was 10.4 years in the case of those who retired at 60 and 9.7 years in the case of those who retired at 65 years of age.

Mr. Norton:  asked the Minister for Finance if he will state the estimated cost for the remainder of the financial year of the revocation in July last of the levies on certain imports, and the estimated income for the current year of the additional customs duties imposed in July.

Dr. Ryan:  The cost to the revenue ip the current financial year of the revocation in July last of the special import levies on certain goods is estimated at about £200,000. The yield this year from the additional customs duties imposed at the same time is expected to be around £100,000.

Mr. Briscoe:  asked the Minister for Finance if he can state how much income-tax has been collected under Schedule E in the last year for which figures are available; and how much of this tax refers to taxpayers with a total income of £l,000 and less.

Dr. Ryan:  The information for which the Deputy asks is not available as, under the existing system of accounting for income-tax collected in any year, the net receipt of that tax is not segregated into the various schedules. The ultimate yield of income-tax in respect of assessments made in the year 1955-56 is, however, estimated at £22,952,000, of which an estimated £6,048,000 is attributable to [702] assessments under Schedule E. Statistics are not available to indicate what proportion of the estimated yield under Schedule E is attributable to taxpayers with total incomes of £1,000-and less.

Mr. Calleary:  asked the Minister for Finance if he will state the date or dates in February last on which a preliminary inspection was carried out on Surgeview pier, County Mayo; and whether any inspection had been carried out in the two years previous to this inspection.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr. Beegan):  The preliminary inspection of Surgeview pier was made on the 12th February, 1957. An engineer from the Office of Public Works visited the site on the 9th November, 1956, but the weather and seas were so unfavourable that it was not possible to examine the pier. No other inspection had been carried out in the previous two years.

Mr. Norton:  asked the Minister for Finance whether, in view of the layoff of turf workers in the Kildare area, he proposes to make a special grant available for the provision of employment in the area.

Mr. Beegan:  Grants for employment schemes from the Employment and Emergency Schemes Vote are intended primarily to provide spells of work for unemployment assistance recipients and it is not practicable to make special grants for other classes of workers such as those referred to by the Deputy. I may add, however, that the current winter bog development schemes roads programme — which is not related to the unemployment position — includes grants amounting to £2,820 for bog roads in the Timahoe area, out of a total allocation of £4,000 for County Kildare as a whole.

Mr. Norton:  I take it the Parliamentary Secretary is aware of the fact that it has been customary in recent years to make special grants to provide for the sag in employment among turf [703] workers in these particular areas. Am I to understand from the reply that no special grant of that kind will be made to deal with the unemployment problem arising out of the termination of turf work this year?

Mr. Beegan:  There is no fund from which grants are available for disemployed people or for people who are disemployed owing to seasonal slackness. The Special Employment Schemes Office give priority in nearly all cases to those who are on the unemployment assistance register because those who have been disemployed from works such as Bord na Móna and others are eligible for unemployment insurance benefit and if there were funds available I believe the better thing to do would be to extend the time of work for the people on unemployment assistance because it has to be borne in mind that those who have been disemployed had the advantage of having had a period of work at reasonable remuneration which many of the unemployment assistance recipients did not have.

Mr. Sweetman:  No grant this year; one last year and the year before.

Mr. Norton:  Each year for the past five or six years these special grants were made available and I have no doubt that the money could be found this year as well as it was in previous years if the Government were so minded. Surely, it ought to be possible to have the matter reconsidered and to continue the humane practice of other years of making a special grant to take up the sag in employment which is peculiar to the turf area.

Mr. McQuillan:  Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the position as outlined by Deputy Norton is exactly the same in the Mount Dillon area?

An Ceann Comhairle:  The Deputy may not travel over the whole country on this question.

Mr. McQuillan:  Whatever steps are taken, and I hope practical steps will be taken, to solve the problem in Kildare, I hope similar steps will be [704] taken with regard to the other areas involved.

Mr. T. Lynch:  You have £100,000,000 to spend over there.

Mr. Beegan:  I am not aware that any special grants were made within the past few years for such a purpose as Deputy Norton has in mind.

Mr. Sweetman:  The Parliamentary Secretary should examine his files more closely.

Mr. Beegan:  If I look up the files, I will know that we have made more money available for unemployment this year than the inter-Party Government did last year. We have spent more in Kildare this year than they gave.

Mr. Norton:  May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether in making his last reply he has overlooked the fact that this particular year, when no grants can be made available to relieve the sag of employment in the turf areas, we are nevertheless providing an uncovenanted benefit of £250,000 for master bakers?

Mr. Fanning:  asked the Minister for Finance whether a grant will be made available for the cleaning of Ballyfinboy River, Cloughjordan, County Tipperary.

Mr. Beegan:  I am advised that the nature and extent of this work put it outside the scope of the minor works carried out under the rural improvements scheme.

D'fhiafraigh

Seán Mac Eochagáin:  den Aire Airgeadais an bhfuil aon chonraitheoir foirgníochta ceaptha aige fós le scoil náisiúnta nua a dhéanamh i Muighros, Cárna, Contae na Gaillimhe.

Pádraig Ó Beacháin:  Tá súil ag Coimisinéirí na nOibreacha Poiblí go mbeidh siad i ndon go luath glacadh le tairiscint le haghaidh tógála na scoile seo.

[705]D'fhiafraigh

Seán Mac Eochagáin:  den Aire Airgeadais an bhfuil aon dul chun cinn déanta i dtaobh scoil náisiúnta nua a dhéanamh i nGlinnsce, An Caiseal, Conamara.

Pádraig Ó Beacháin:  Tá Coimisinéirí na nOibreacha Poiblí tar éis dréacht-scéim don scoil nua i nGlinnsce agus meastachán costais do chur chun na Roinne Oideachais. Tá an Roinn sin i gcomh-fhreagarthas leis an mbainisteoir oirmhidhneach sa scéal.

General Mulcahy:  asked the Minister for Justice if he will make available to Members copies of the communications which have passed between him or the Government and the Statutory Body in relation to the Solicitors' Remuneration General Order, 1957, in respect of which notice of a motion was circulated to members on the 9th November.

Mr. Sweetman:  asked the Minister for Justice if he will make available copies of all correspondence which passed since 1st May, 1957, between his Department and the Statutory Body appointed under the Solicitors (Ireland) Act, 1881.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Traynor):  With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle I propose to give a single reply to Questions Nos. 54 and 55. Copies of the correspondence referred to have been placed in the Library.

General Mulcahy:  Would the Minister say will copies be available for any Deputy who may want them?

Mr. Traynor:  They have been placed in the Library and will be available for any Deputy who wishes to see them there, I am sure.

General Mulcahy:  asked the Minister for Justice if he will state why the motion relating to the Solicitors' Remuneration General Order, 1957, of which notice was circulated to Members on the 9th November, was withdrawn; whether it is the intenion of the Government to ask Dáil Éireann to discuss such a motion and, if so, when; [706] whether, if it is not so intended, and if the Government propose to disallow the Order, he will state the statutory authority under which the Order may be disallowed by the Government without a decision on the matter being obtained in the Dáil.

Mr. Traynor:  The motion was withdrawn because the General Order to which it relates has since been disallowed.

The statutory authority for the disallowance of a General Order of the kind is sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Solicitors' Remuneration Act, 1881, which, as adapted, provides for disallowance on a Resolution by either House of the Oireachtas.

General Mulcahy:  Will the Minister say whether, in view of the terms of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act of 1881, which are to the effect that if within any month a petition is made to the Queen by either House of Parliament it shall be lawful for Her Majesty by Order in Council to disallow the Order, and whether in view of the fact that the Minister is not constrained in any way by any action or by any request made by either House of Parliament to take the administrative action of disallowing the Order, he will say for what reason he disallows an Order in respect to which, the question having been put to the Seanad, no single member of the Seanad gave any reason or expression of opinion as to the grounds upon which the Order should be disallowed and why, in such circumstances, he adopts the extraordinary precedent of disallowing an Order without putting the matter for discussion to the Dáil?

Mr. Traynor:  I spoke for the people to whom the Deputy referred; I spoke on their behalf. I gave the reasons. I think that was satisfactory enough. The time, as the Deputy knows, was limited. If the members to whom the Deputy has referred were to have participated in the debate, it is possible that the discussion would have been prolonged to the following day which might — I do not say it would — have been outside the date on which the Order should operate.

[707]General Mulcahy:  In order to be clear as to the exact facts, I would ask the Minister this question: is it a fact that the Government has disallowed an Order that was made by a statutory body of the highest prestige and position that we have in our general scheme of Government and that it has done that without a single voice being raised in the Seanad——

An Ceann Comhairle:  It is undesirable to discuss the actions of the other House here.

General Mulcahy:  I am relating it to the situation here.

An Ceann Comhairle:  It is undesirable that we should discuss the actions of the other House here.

General Mulcahy:  Very good. Am I right in saying that the Government has disallowed an Order made by a very, very important statutory body, consisting of four representative members, two of whom are members of the Council of State, and that they have done that without referring the matter in any way to the Dáil and that they are basing their legal position in the matter on a Statute of 1881 which at that time left the matter open to the Queen of England not to take any action even if both houses of Parliament expressed an opinion?

Is the Minister now acting on this section, without having a single voice raised by a member of either House of the Oireachtas, and disallowing this Order without giving any opportunity to the Dáil to discuss it? If that is so, will the Minister say why he put the motion before the Dáil and then withdrew it?

Mr. Norton:  Before the Minister replies might I ask one supplementary question for the purpose of clarification? Will the Minister please explain why a motion was moved in the Seanad to annul the Order while it was not felt necessary to move a similar motion in this House? Was that due to the fact that in between the meeting of the Seanad and the Dáil the Government discovered that they had some statutory power under an Act of [708] Parliament to do what in fact they asked the Seanad to authorise them to do? Or what is the general position?

Mr. Traynor:  It was only necessary for either one or other of the Houses to disallow this Order, and one House having disallowed the Order the matter does not arise in the other House. That is the simple explanation. If any Deputy wants to know what the case was against the Order I would refer him to the Seanad debate where he can see my opening statement and my concluding statement and I think it will cover what any other member on either side of the House might have intended to say.

General Mulcahy:  Then the Minister is taking action he is in no way statutorily bound to take?

The Taoiseach:  Is the Deputy sure of that?

General Mulcahy:  Absolutely certain.

The Taoiseach:  I am not so sure of it.

General Mulcahy:  Are we to understand that the Taoiseach is not clear on that point?

The Taoiseach:  I am of this opinion, that when it was disallowed by one House it was the duty of the Government immediately to make the necessary Order.

General Mulcahy:  Does the Taoiseach say he was constrained by the Act of 1881 to disallow the Order?

The Taoiseach:  I say that when one House disallowed it, it was the duty of the Government to make that disallowing effective by making the necessary Order.

General Mulcahy:  Is the Taoiseach advised by the Attorney-General that that is so?

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins:  I want to ask the Minister whether or not the correspondence referred to in Questions Nos. 54 and 55 was made available to the other House for the purpose of discussion on this motion?

[709]Mr. Traynor:  I have just stated this correspondence has been laid on the Table of the House.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins:  Was it available for the discussion?

Mr. Traynor:  It was not available for the discussion.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins:  Does the Minister not think we should now have a discussion, when the correspondence is available?

Mr. T. Lynch:  asked the Minister for Justice whether all the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1933, are being enforced, and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Traynor:  So far as I am aware, the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1933, are enforced but if the Deputy has any particular provision in mind I shall have the matter looked into if he brings it to my notice.

Dr. Browne:  asked the Minister for Justice if he will state (1) the number and total cost of (a) Rover, and (b) Mercedes cars already purchased from the respective assemblers; (2) the estimated number and total cost of (a) Rover, and (b) Mercedes cars to be purchased from these assemblers during the next four years; and (3) whether he intends to acquire all of the cars which it is proposed to purchase at an estimated cost of £50,000 over the next four years from the two assemblers concerned.

Mr. Traynor:  As mentioned in reply to previous questions by the Deputy, six Rover and two Mercedes cars were purchased by the Controller of Stores. The cars were purchased below the list price at a discount the amount of which it would be contrary to practice to disclose.

As indicated in my reply on 6th November, no commitment has been entered into for the future supply of ministerial State cars. The particular make and model to be purchased will be determined when the need for replacement [710] arises in the light of the circumstances then obtaining, including the range of cars available, their prices and the requirements of the individual Ministers.

Dr. Browne:  Although the proposed cars, and the cars recently purchased are, I understand, smaller, the prices do not substantially differ from the prices of the old cars and there is no great difference in performance and in view of the fact that the performance of the old cars was satisfactory and the suppliers satisfactory, would the Minister not agree that obviously there has been some undue influence brought to bear within the Cabinet by a Cabinet colleague, seeing that the old supplier and the old type of car were as satisfactory as the new suppliers and the new cars supplied both in the immediate past and to be supplied in the future?

Mr. Traynor:  That is typical of the Deputy's mind.

Mr. Sweetman:  Would the Minister state what is the percentage of the cost of assembly in this country in respect of each of the cars?

Mr. Traynor:  I could not give the Deputy that information offhand.

Mr. Moloney:  asked the Minister for Justice if he will state the date on which an increase was imposed on ordinary publican's licences from 2/6 to £1, and on exemptions from 10/- to £3, and the reason for these substantial increases; and if he is aware that the increases have caused resentment and general dissatisfaction in the licensed trade, and, if so, whether he proposes to adjust the charges to a more reasonable figure.

Mr. Traynor:  The fees in question were increased by the District Court (Fees) Order, 1956, which came into operation on the 1st October, 1956. The purpose of the Order was to reduce the gap between income and expenditure for the services of the District Court, that is to say, to raise revenue, and I know no way of doing this without causing dissatisfaction. I am sorry that I cannot see my way to [711] reduce these particular fees, but I am not satisfied that they constitute an unfair burden for the licensed trade or that it would not be more unfair to ask other District Court users to carry part of that burden on top of their own share of the general increase in fees.

Dr. Browne:  asked the Minister for Justice whether, in view of the increases in rents, amounting in some cases to as much as 125 per cent. on old rents, which follow the carrying out of repairs by private housing companies, he will introduce legislation to amend the Rent Restrictions Acts in order to set a reasonable maximum limit beyond which any such increases will not be permitted.

Mr. Traynor:  All aspects of rent control, including the aspects referred to by the Deputy, are still under consideration. Meanwhile, I am not in a position to indicate what decisions may be taken in the matter.

Dr. Browne:  Can the Minister give any idea how long it will take for a decision to be reached in regard to this very important question?

Mr. Traynor:  It is not before the Government at the moment, and I cannot say when it will be before them.

Mr. P. Byrne:  asked the Minister for Justice whether the interception of postal communications, telegrams and telephone messages is practised for any purpose whatsoever, and, if so, if he will state upon what authority the practice is based and indicate the procedure involved; and further, if he will state the number of interceptions made during the past five years.

Mr. Traynor:  The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Interceptions are made on the authority of the Minister for Justice in exercise of a long standing power the existence of which is explicitly recognised in Section 56 of the Post Office Act, 1908.

[712] Each warrant is issued on the personal authority of the Minister for Justice which is given only where the warrant is required for security purposes or for the prevention or detection of serious crime, information as to which could be got in no other way.

It is against the public interest to give figures for the number of interceptions and, like all my predecessors in office, I am not prepared to do so.

Mr. McQuillan:  asked the Minister for Justice if he will state the number of men who were detained and taken to the Curragh internment camp prior to, or on the date of, the expiration of sentences of imprisonment already undergone by them.

Mr. Traynor:  The number is 52.

Mr. McQuillan:  asked the Minister for Justice whether, in view of his recent statement in Dáil Éireann that there is no question of using powers of detention as a substitute for trial by court, and that in any case in which the police can get evidence, court proceedings will follow, he will state why a number of the men, including a Member, who are at present interned, were detained on their way from prison at the expiration of sentences imposed for specific offences on evidence supplied by the police.

Mr. Traynor:  Detention under the Offences Against the State Act is not punitive but with a view to preventing the commission of offences by the persons detained. When satisfactory evidence of the commission of offences is obtainable the persons concerned are charged with such offences and if convicted and sentenced suffer the punishment imposed by the courts. There is no question of substituting detention for punitive imprisonment.

The persons mentioned were convicted of offences and sentenced to terms of imprisonment, which sentences they served. I was of opinion that their detention under the Offences Against the State Act was necessary to prevent the commission of further [713] offences which would be prejudicial to the safety of the State and I accordingly authorised it.

Mr. McQuillan:  May we take it then that the statement made previously by the Minister on the night of November 6th was incorrect? In that statement he said that, where possible, men would be brought to trial where evidence was made available by the Garda and that it was only where evidence of likely offences was not available that recourse would be had to internment. Is it not a fact that the 52 men mentioned in reply to the previous question had already been arrested, charged and sentenced for specific offences on evidence supplied by the Garda? Prior to their release at the end of these sentences, they were taken by members of the forces under the Minister's control and brought to the Curragh Camp without any evidence or likelihood that they would commit further offences. Is that not contempt and flouting of the law as it stands?

Mr. Traynor:  Each of the individuals to whom the Deputy has referred was convicted of criminal offences under the Offences Against the State Act. It was my opinion that if these people were released, they would have resumed their former activities and because I believed that, I decided they should be put into further detention in the internment camp.

Mr. McQuillan:  Can I take it that the position of the 52 men concerned is no different from that of the other men interned in the camp? Is it not a fact that these 52 men were charged and served sentences for alleged specific offences under the Offences Against the State Act? Is it suggested now that the Minister's opinion is sufficient to have these men further interned without charge or trial, at his own whim?

Mr. Hilliard:  asked the Minister for Justice whether, as alleged in the House on 6th November, a student of University College, Dublin, detained under the Offences Against the State [714] Act, 1940, was released because of pressure brought to bear on the Government and without signing any form of undertaking; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Mr. Traynor:  There is no truth in the allegation made by Deputy McQuillan. The student in question was released on 17th August on signing the following undertaking:—

“I, Michael M. Davern, undertake to respect the Constitution of Ireland and the laws, and I declare that I will not be a member of, or assist, any organisation which is an unlawful organisation under the Offences Against the State Act, 1939.”

Every person in detention has been informed in writing that on giving such an undertaking, he will be released forthwith.

Mr. McQuillan:  In view of the fact that my name has been mentioned, may I inquire from the Minister is it not a fact that this student, who was arrested at 11.30 at night last July, was taken to the Curragh Internment Camp, in spite of the fact he was prepared to swear he was not a member of and did not intend to become a member of any alleged illegal organisation and that he was not released until he went on hunger strike?

Dr. Ryan:  The Deputy said he did not sign anything.

An Ceann Comhairle:  Order!

Mr. Traynor:  I was replying to a deliberate misstatement the Deputy made in the course of the debate on the prisoners.

Mr. McQuillan:  In spite of the fact he was prepared to swear he was not a member of any alleged illegal organisation, he had to go on hunger strike before he was released.

Mr. K. Boland:  He had to sign the form.

Mr. McQuillan:  You do not know what the truth is.

An Ceann Comhairle:  Order! Question No. 65.

[715]Mr. Russell:  asked the Minister for Local Government if he will state, having regard to Article 16. 2. 2º of the Constitution, which constituencies are (a) over-represented, and (b) underrepresented on the basis of the Census of Population, 1956.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Smith):  The limits indicated in Article 16. 2. 2º of the Constitution are not directly applicable to individual constituencies, but they apply in determining the total number of members of the Dáil. A revision of the present number of Dáil seats, for the purpose of representation in future Dála, will be undertaken within the next two years in pursuance of the constitutional provision and in the light of the Census of Population, 1956.

Mr. Sweetman:  The Minister said “within the next two years”. Is it by 31st September, 1959, that the Act must be enacted?

Mr. Smith:  I really cannot give the exact date. It is within the next two years.

Dr. Esmonde:  asked the Minister for Local Government if it is mandatory on local authorities to keep non-vested cottages rented by them to tenants in a decent state of repair, and, if so, on whom rests the actual responsibility for such repair.

Mr. Smith:  The Housing (Management and Letting) Regulations, 1950 and 1953, require housing authorities to keep such cottages in tenantable condition and repair.

Dr. Esmonde:  To whom does one make representation to have these houses repaired, if one is not a member of the county council? I should like to know on whom it is mandatory to see that this work is carried out.

Mr. Smith:  I understand the Wexford County Council — and I assume it is to that local authority the Deputy is referring — applied some time last year for a loan of £30,000 for the purpose [716] of repairing cottages which, I assume, were in need of repair. In each of the years 1953, 1954 and 1955, the council spent from revenue, which is the customary procedure, sums amounting to approximately £15,000. In 1956, they applied for permission to approach the Local Loans Fund for a loan of £30,000, and because of the situation then existing and of the general practice that had been followed in regard to such applications, such permission was not granted.

Dr. Esmonde:  Has the Minister authority to see that the repair of these cottages is carried out? Am I, as a Deputy, in a position to make representations to the Minister to see that the work is done?

Mr. Smith:  The Minister has no direct responsibility for the repair of these cottages. Like all other public men, the Deputy is entitled to make representations to the body on whom rests responsibility for the carrying out of these repairs. I gave the Deputy some figures indicating that the council concerned in 1953-54 spent £15,000 odd on 451 cottages; in the following year, £16,000 odd on 468 cottages; and in 1955-56, £16,000 odd on 408 cottages. That did not seem to me to be a bad performance, since these repairs were carried out from revenue, but there may be a number of other cottages in need of repair. It is the responsibility of the body concerned to see that these repairs are carried out.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan:  Is it not a fact that a tenant of a county council cottage has the right to appeal to the Minister, if his cottage is not put into repair prior to vesting?

Mr. Smith:  We are not discussing the matter of vesting. The question addressed to me is one that concerns non-vested cottages.

Mr. Norton:  asked the Minister for Local Government if he will state the number of labourers' cottages erected by the Kildare County Council, and the number of cottages purchased by the tenants.

[717]Mr. Smith:  The number of dwellings erected by Kildare County Council under the Labourers Acts up to 30th September, 1957, was 3,974. The number vested in the tenants at the same date was 1,968.

Mr. Blowick:  asked the Minister for Local Government if it is the practice of his Department not to give water and sanitation grants to persons who have received housing grants from the Land Commission during rearrangement and enlargement proceedings, and, if so, if he will have this practice reversed forthwith.

Mr. Smith:  Grants for the installation of water and sewerage facilities are made available by my Department to occupiers of houses erected with the aid of grants from the Land Commission. It has not been the practice of my Department to pay such grants where the facilities are provided in conjunction with the erection of the houses. I do not intend to change this procedure.

Mr. Blowick:  Could the Minister say why is a person who has built a house under a Land Commission grant denied water and sanitation grants?

Mr. Smith:  Any person who has built a house with the assistance of a Land Commission grant is entitled, as I have said in my reply, to obtain a grant in respect of the addition of water and sanitation. In regard to any house being erected by the Land Commission, in process of being erected by the Land Commission and in respect of which the Land Commission is giving a grant, we do not propose, if I may use the expression, to butt in with another grant and incur all the trouble and cost of a dual inspection. We take the view that during the course of the erection of a house by a tenant of the Land Commission, the Land Commission should add whatever sum is necessary in order to give the additional facilities.

Mr. Blowick:  I think the Minister is answering a question I did not put. The particular type of case I want to bring to his notice is the case of a [718] tenant who builds a house with a Land Commission grant, but the money due for water and sanitation is denied in that case. I know if the tenant waits until the house is completed, the grant is made available, but he has very often to dismantle portion of the newly-erected house to fit in a water and sanitation system. Somehow that does not make sense.

Mr. Smith:  The easy way out of this matter is that the Land Commission should change the plans of such a house themselves and offer the additional money for water and sanitation, instead of having it paid by the Department of Local Government which will necessitate inspection, not only by the Land Commission but also by the Department of Local Government.

Mr. Blowick:  The Minister should take that matter up with his colleague, the Minister for Lands.

Mr. Smith:  Deputy Blowick took it up with his colleagues as Minister for Lands and his decision is the one I &m proposing to stand over because it looks sensible.

Mr. Blowick:  It does not look sensible.

Mr. Cunningham:  asked the Minister for Local Government if he has yet sanctioned tenders submitted to his Department for housing schemes at Mullaney, Burt, Cashel, Carndonagh, and Inch Island, County Donegal, and, if not, when the tenders are likely to be sanctioned.

Mr. Smith:  The proposals of the Donegal County Council to accept tenders for the erection of four houses at Cashel, Carndonagh, and four houses at Inch Island were approved on 24th ultimo.

A proposal to accept a tender for the erection of four houses at Mullaney, Burt, was not approved, as the tender price was excessive.

Mr. Moloney:  asked the Minister for Social Welfare why most new claims [719] for unemployment benefit and sickness benefit are referred for special investigation on the grounds of insurability; and whether he is aware that, pending the result of such investigation, which invariably takes several weeks, grave hardship and inconvenience are caused to the claimants, particularly those seeking sickness benefit, and, if so, if he will ensure that, in future, all investigations are carried through expeditiously and decisions arrived at with the minimum of delay.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Smith):  It is not the case that most new claims to benefit are referred for special investigation on the question of insurability. This course is adopted only where there is reason to believe that stamps have been affixed to insurance cards for weeks in which there was no insurable employment. The validity of suspect stamps must be established before they can be utilised for benefit purposes. In this respect, I may say that there has been a growing tendency, particularly in rural areas, to affix stamps irregularly for the purpose of obtaining benefits under the Social Welfare Acts and my Department has been compelled to exercise extra vigilance to curb this form of abuse. I can assure the Deputy, however, that every effort is made to avoid delay in the investigation and determination of claims to benefit.

Dr. Browne:  asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will state the total number of children in respect of whom children's allowances were payable in each of the years 1953 to 1956, inclusive.

Mr. Smith:  The number of children in respect of whom children's allowances were payable on 31st December in each of the years 1953, 1954, 1955 and 1956 was 571,896; 578,438; 583,710 and 585,942 respectively.

Mr. Rooney:  asked the Minister for Lands whether the Land-Commission [720] have decided on a scheme for the subdivision of lands at Newtown estate, near Garristown, and, if so, whether all the lands of this estate are being reserved for allocation to local deserving applicants.

Minister for Defence (Mr. K. Boland) (for the Minister for Lands):  Final arrangements for the disposal of this estate have not yet been made but the claims of all applicants will be fully considered in connection with the division of the lands.

Mr. Fanning:  asked the Minister for Lands whether any proceedings are at present taking place with a view to the taking over for division of the Biggs estate, Belleview, Coolbawn, Nenagh, County Tipperary.

Mr. K. Boland:  The Land Commission have no proceedings for the acquisition of this estate.

Mr. Fanning:  asked the Minister for Lands if he will state what proposals are before the Land Commission regarding the acquisition and/or division of estates in North Tipperary and, further, if he will state the names of those estates about to be divided.

Mr. K. Boland:  Land Commission records are not kept on the basis of constituency areas. However, in the North Tipperary district, proceedings have been instituted for the compulsory acquisition or resumption of six estates comprising 949 acres while negotiations are in progress for the voluntary purchase of five further estates comprising 514 acres. In addition, inquiries are being made by the Land Commission in respect of 26 estates or holdings comprising about 3,500 acres with a view to considering the question of acquisition, purchase or resumption. There are approximately 1,000 arable acres on hands in the district. An area of 646 acres has already been allocated this year, but it is not possible to say definitely what further areas will be disposed of by the end of the current financial year. If the Deputy is interested in any individual estate and furnishes me [721] with particulars thereof, I shall have inquiries made regarding it.

Mr. Fanning:  asked the Minister for Lands if he will state what acreage of land the Forestry Branch has taken over in the Portroe and Silvermines areas of North Tipperary for afforestation purposes, and if he will have this work carried on on a larger scale so as to assist the unemployed in those areas.

Mr. K. Boland:  The total productive area of land held by my Department for afforestation in the Portroe and Silvermines area is 1,356 acres of which a total of 753 acres has been planted. The area scheduled for planting in the current season comprises 198 acres and this work, together with other forestry work being undertaken in the area, will afford constant employment to a staff of 25 men for the season. It is considered that the level of planting being undertaken in the area is as high as possible having regard to the plantable reserve position. The rapid utilisation of all the land available would not be in conformity with sound forestry practice and would almost certainly result in redundancy among the existing staff at an early date.

Mr. Geoghegan:  asked the Minister for Lands when turbary plots will be allocated to the tenants of Camus Eighter, Costello, County Galway.

Mr. K. Boland:  Due to the heavy demand for turbary in Connemara, priority in its allocation by the Land Commission must be given to the most necessitous cases. I understand that the majority of the tenants in Camus Eighter already have some turbary with their existing holdings. Nevertheless, the claims of these tenants are not being overlooked and efforts will be made to provide them with additional turbary facilities as soon as possible.

Mr. Calleary:  asked the Minister for Lands if he will state the reasons for [722] the delay in the re-erection of the slip at Graughill, Barnatra, County Mayo.

Mr. K. Boland:  My powers and responsibilities in regard to marine works are limited to the recommendation of a Grant-in-Aid from State funds, the balance to be provided by the local authority, where I am satisfied that the proposed works are necessary in the fishery interests and the cost is reasonably related to the actual and prospective value of these interests. Difficulty has been experienced in devising a scheme of improvement of the landing facilities at Graughill which would be of real service to the local fishing community. In 1952, a scheme then under consideration was found to be unacceptable to the Mayo County Council on the grounds of its alleged inadequacy and unsuitability. A revised scheme, estimated to cost about £7,000, has since been prepared but it also has its limitations and, before making a final recommendation in regard to it, I am awaiting the results of further inquiries which I have directed should be made. I have asked that these inquiries be expedited as much as practicable.

Mr. Calleary:  asked the Minister for Lands if he will state the reasons for the delay in the replacement of the wooden jetty at Darby's Point, Achill, County Mayo.

Mr. K. Boland:  When the timber jetty extension of Darby's Point pier had to be dismantled about ten years ago because of its dangerous condition, the Mayo County Council proposed that the structure be replaced and were asked by my Department to furnish a plan and an estimate of cost. These particulars have not been received in my Department but if and when they are the proposal will receive full consideration from the fishery viewpoint.

Mr. Cunningham:  asked the Minister for Lands when the proposed development scheme for Greencastle harbour, County Donegal, is likely to commence.

[723]Mr. K. Boland:  I am not yet in a position to state when work on Greencastle harbour may be commenced.

A revised scheme of improvement has been under consideration, and I am satisfied that a State contribution to it would be warranted. The further necessary action will be taken without avoidable delay.

Mr. T. Lynch:  asked the Minister for Education if he will state the position regarding the repairs and the extension to the Sisters of Charity schools, Parnell Street, Waterford.

Minister for Defence (Mr. K. Boland) (for the Minister for Education):  Sketch plans for the reconstruction and improvement of St. Joseph's Convent National School, Parnell Street, Waterford, have been prepared by the manager's architect and have been approved by the Commissioners of Public Works and by my Department. The other arrangements which are a necessary preliminary to the sanction of a grant towards the cost of the scheme have been completed.

In view, however, of the great number of cases of the erection of new schools and the enlargement and improvement of existing schools which are maturing for grants, it may, having regard to the availability of money, be necessary to give precedence, in the matter of the allocation of grants, to the more urgent cases. That being so, it is possible that my Department may not be in a position to sanction a grant within the current financial year towards the cost of the proposed scheme at St. Joseph's Convent National School.

Dr. Browne:  asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs if he will state (a) the date upon which it was decided by the Government that a public relations officer should be appointed to his Department; (b) the total number of staff employed in connection with this new service; (c) whether the post and that of assistant, if any, to the [724] public relations officer were advertised in the public Press; and (d) whether the appointment was made on the recommendation of the Civil Service Commissioners.

Dr. Browne:  asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs if, in view of the policy outlined in the Budget speech of the Minister for Finance on 8th May, 1957, in regard to economy in the Civil Service, he will state the grounds on which it was considered necessary to appoint a public relations officer to his Department; and if he will further state (1) what additional duties have been allocated to the public relations officer which have not been adequately carried out by the existing staff to date, (2) the salary to be paid to the person appointed, (3) whether an assistant public relations officer has been appointed, and, if so, what salary he or she is paid, and (4) the total estimated cost in wages and salaries to be paid during the next financial year to the public relations officer, his assistant, if any, and necessary clerical and other staff.

Dr. Ryan (for the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs):  With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 83 and 84 together.

The appointment of a public relations officer was considered necessary having regard to the wide nature of the public service provided by my Department — one of the largest organisations in the State. Up to the time of his appointment, publicity matters and public inquiries and complaints were handled sectionally. A public relations officer able to devote himself whole time to the work is clearly in a better position to co-ordinate and represent more adequately public information relating to the various aspects of the Department's activities in addition to those relating to Radio Éireann.

The answers to the Deputy's further questions are:—

No additional duties, beyond those arising out of public relations work, which were previously dealt with sectionally, [725] have been allocated to the new officer.

The salary to be paid to the officer is £1,613 per annum rising by annual increments of £47 to £1,807 (inclusive).

No assistant to the public relations officer or other staff has been appointed.

The total estimated cost of salary for the next financial year is £1,662.

The proposal to appoint a public relations officer was dealt with in the normal way between the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and the Department of Finance.

Sanction for the creation of the post and the appointment of an officer to fill it was given by the latter Department on 2nd September.

The appointment was made by transfer of an existing civil servant and it was not, therefore, necessary to advertise the post. The officer was accepted by the Civil Service Commissioners as qualified for the appointment.

Mr. McQuillan:  Would the Minister explain how it is that it was not found necessary, up to the present, to make such an appointment? It must be an appointment of a very responsible nature seeing that £1,600 is the salary that has been assigned. How is it that, at a time when the Government are advocating a tightening of belts to the public, it was found necessary to set up a new job in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs when the work, up to that, had been satisfactorily and well done?

Dr. Browne:  The Taoiseach had to do that for his friend.

Mr. Briscoe:  Is the Minister in a position to state how many extra jobs were created in his Department in the period 1948 to 1951 when Deputy Dr. Browne was Minister for Health?

Mr. McQuillan:  Is it not a fact that the sole reason for this appointment was in order to place the unfortunate man who had to be shifted so that the Taoiseach's own nominee could be put in that particular public Department?

[726]Dr. Ryan:  The Deputies on my left have very fertile imaginations. They can supply reasons — much better than I can. It shows that they give a considerable amount of their time to a study of these matters — and have, I think, in the past.

Mr. T. Lynch:  What about the explanation the other day in respect of the cars?

Dr. Browne:  Do you remember the name of the car?

Dr. Ryan:  Does Deputy Dr. Browne remember the name of the publicity officer he got in 1948?

Dr. Browne:  A trained journalist.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:  Deputy Dr. Browne must allow the Minister to reply without interruption.

Mr. McQuillan:  There was a job of work to be done in 1948.

Dr. Ryan:  There was a long-standing request from the Department of Posts and Telegraphs — as, indeed, there is from other Departments — to the Minister for Finance for a publicity officer. It was sure to be acceded to at some time. It happened to be acceded to recently. That is all.

Mr. T. Lynch:  In view of the appointment of this publicity officer, does the Minister state now that his first job in publicity was the interview in respect of which he provided the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs with the statement in regard to television which he made in the Shelbourne Hotel in which he gave information which should have been given from this House?

Dr. Ryan:  I think it was the same publicity officer who provided the former Taoiseach with a statement which he made in——

Mr. Sweetman:  Does the Minister not know very well why the appointment was made? Why not be honest about it?

Mr. Dillon:  He has forgotten temporarily.

[727]Mr. T. Lynch:  Will the Minister answer my supplementary question?

Mr. Moloney:  asked the Minister for Defence if he is aware that there is grave dissatisfaction and discontent existing at present among non-commissioned officers and privates in the permanent Army because of the fact that they do not qualify for retiring gratuities as do the higher officer ranks, and, if so, if he will introduce a scheme of gratuities on similar terms for the lower ranks.

Mr. K. Boland:  I am aware that noncommissioned officers and privates feel that their conditions on discharge should be improved.

In order to correct any misapprehensions there may be about this matter, I should perhaps point out that only married officers get gratuities in addition to their retirement pensions. Single officers do not get gratuities with pensions. On the other hand, married soldiers discharged after 21 years' service get further pensions (known as married pensions) in addition to their ordinary service pensions.

I would like to be able to introduce a scheme which would give improved pension conditions to soldiers but I regret that in present circumstances I cannot do so. I am glad, however, to be able to announce that in future a soldier on discharge will be eligible for pre-discharge leave up to a maximum of 91 days — with full pay and allowances — instead of the present 21 days' leave. This concession will, I believe, prove of assistance to the soldier in making arrangements to return to civilian life.

Mr. McQuillan:  In making arrangements to emigrate, you mean.

Mr. Fanning:  asked the Minister for Defence if he will take steps to have the sewerage scheme at McCann Barracks, Templemore, County Tipperary, completed as soon as possible.

Mr. K. Boland:  I have taken steps [728] to have the sewerage schemes for McCann Barracks, Templemore, completed as soon as possible and I hope to have work on the scheme resumed before the end of next week.

Mr. Corry:  asked the Minister for Defence if he has received representations from the Cobh vocational schools in respect of the admission of civilian apprentices to Haulbowline naval dockyard; and whether his Department has yet reached any decision on the matter.

Mr. K. Boland:  The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, I regret that it has not yet been found possible to reach a decision.

Mr. Corry:  Is the Minister aware that I have received that reply from different Ministers for Defence on different occasions in this House in the course of the past seven years? Is the Minister not aware that this is a matter of grave importance to the people of Cobh and that if the recommendations of the Cobh Vocational Schools in respect of the admission of civilian apprentices to Haulbowline Naval Dockyard had been carried out seven years ago we would not now have to look for foreign technicians for the oil refinery? Does it take the Department of Defence seven years to make up their minds as to whether or not they will take in a few apprentices?

Mr. K. Boland:  There are a lot of difficulties in the way and it has not been possible to reach a decision yet.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan:  The Minister is only laughing at us.

Mr. Corry:  You have all the answers. I wish to give notice that with the permission of the Chair, I will raise this matter on the Adjournment tonight.

The Clerk made the following announcement:—

I gcomhlíonadh Buan-Orduithe 134 de Bhuan-Orduithe Dháil Éireann i dtaobh Gnótha Phoiblí tá orm a chraoladh gur toghadh Proinsias Ó Searbháin, chun na Dála sa Chorrthoghchán a bhí ann an 14 Samhain, 1957, do Dháilcheantar Buirge Bhaile Atha Cliath Thuaidh (Lár) in ionad an Teachta Colm Ó Gallchobhair, a fuair bás.

In compliance with Standing Order 134 of the Standing Orders of Dáil Éireann relative to Public Business, I have to announce that Frank Sherwin has been elected to the Dáil at the By-Election held on 14th November, 1957, for the Borough Constituency of Dublin North (Central) in place of Deputy Colm Gallagher, deceased.

Deputy Frank Sherwin, the new Member for the Borough Constituency of Dublin North (Central), was introduced to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle by Deputy Carroll and took his seat.

Mr. Dillon:  I suppose somebody should welcome him.

Mr. Sweetman:  I see some very glum faces over there — one in particular.

Mr. S. Lemass:  What have you to cheer about?

Mr. T. Lynch:  The slogan did not work this time: “A vote for Gregan is a vote for Dev.”

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:  Order!

[733]An Taoiseach:  Ba mhaith liom comhbhrón na Dála a chur in iúl do bhaintrigh and do chlainn an tSeanadóra Seán Ó Maoláin. Iarraim cead don Runaí Parlaiminte ráiteas beag a léamh thar mo cheann.

Rúnaí Parlaiminte an Taoisigh (Donnchadh Ó Briain) (thar cheann an Taoisigh):  Ón uair dheireannach a bhí an Dáil ina suí, tá an Seanadóir Seán Ó Maoláin, an tAire Talmhaíochta, imithe go hobann ar slí na fírinne. Ba chúis méala agus buartha an scéal tubaisteach sin a chlos, ní hamháin do chomhaltaí na Dála agus an tSeanaid ach do mhuinntir na tíre ar fad. Go dtuga Dia solas síorraí na bhFlaitheas dá anam dílis cróga.

Is beag gné de shaol náisiúnta ár dtíre ná raibh Seán Ó Maoláin páirteach ann le linn a shaoil. Ba dhual muintire dhó cion a chroí a bheith ar thír na hÉireann agus mian a chroí ar a saoirse a bhaint amach agus a chaomhaint. Ní raibh sé in aois fir nuair a thosnaigh sé ag caitheamh a dhúthrachta ar theanga agus lúthchleasa na nGael. Ní hionadh go raibh sé ar dhuine dhíobh san is túisce a chuaidh isteach in Óglaigh na hÉireann agus a rinne a ndícheall chun comhacht míleata na tíre d'fhorbairt in aimsir práinne.

Nuair a bhí sé ina fhear óg, fiú amháin, bhí ainm agus clú Sheáin Uí Mhaoláin i mbéal na ndaoine ina cheantar féin, i Luimneach agus i gCorcaigh Thuaidh. Is beag cinnire imeasc cinnirí míleata na hÉireann ab áirde cáil ná é in aimsir na nDubhChrónach.

Toghadh é ina Theachta Dála, den chéad uair, i mí Bealtaine, míle naoi gcéad fiche a haon. Toghadh arís é sa bhliain míle naoi gcéad triocha a dó, agus bhí sé ina Theachta ón uair sin i leith go dtí tús na bliana seo. Bhí sé ina Rúnaí Parlaiminte ón mbliain míle naoi gcéad triocha a seacht go dtí míle naoi gcéad dachad a trí. Ina dhiaidh sin, chaith sé cúig bliana ina Aire, i gceannas na Roinne Tailte. Ba é an tAire Oideachais é ón mbliain míle naoi gcéad caoga a haon go dtí [734] míle naoi gcéad caoga a ceathair. Is ró-ghearr an tréimhse a chaith sé ina Aire Talmhaíochta, Ó mhí Bealtaine na bliana seo go dtí lá a bháis.

Admhaíonn an saol a fheabhas a chomhlíon Seán Ó Maoláin dualgais na n-oifigí sin. Iad-san a réitigh agus iad-san nár réitigh lena thuairimí í gcúrsaí polaitíochta nó creidimh, bhí meas acu go léir air agus gradam acu dhó. Thuigeadar go léir gurbh é croí an ionracais é. Ba léir dóibh na tréithe intleachta a bhí ann, an mheabhair agus an tuiscint, toradh a mhachnaimh agus a chuid léitheoireachta.

Bhí sé ar dhuine dhíobh-san is mó a thuill buíochas as ucht na saoirse atá againn agus an dul-ar-aghaidh atá déanta sa tír seo le dachad blian anuas. Beidh trácht ar a ainm agus a ghníomhartha an fhaid a bheidh stair na hÉireann á aithris. Fear cróga ardintinneach dob eadh é. Is iad na hardchuspóirí a chuir sé roimhe, agus is chucu a dhírigh sé a anam riamh. Éinne gur chara do Sheán Ó Maoláin é, ní miste dhó bheith mórálach as go dtiocfaidh lá a bháis.

Iarraim ort, a Cheann Comhairle, comhbhrón croí na Dála a chur in iúl do bhaintrigh agus do chlainn Sheáin Uí Mhaoláin.

D'éirigh na Teachtaí.

An Taoiseach:  Is maith liom insint don Dáil, mar eolas, go ndearnas, mar shocrú sealadach, an Roinn Talmhaíochta a shannadh do Phroinsias Mac Aogáin, comhalta den Rialtas agus Aire Gnóthaí Eachtracha. Tá súil agam go mbeimíd i ndon an áit a líonadh go seasamhach faoi cheann seachtaine.

I should, perhaps, state for the benefit of those who did not understand what I have just said that I have assigned temporarily the Department of Agriculture to Proinsias Mac Aogáin, a Member of the Government, the Minister for External Affairs. I hope to see that the position is filled definitely within a week.

[735]An Tánaiste:  It is proposed to, take business in the following order: Nos. 1 to 10 inclusive. Private Members' Business will be taken at 9 o'clock.

Mr. McQuillan:  I should like to raise the subject matter of Question No. 63 on to-day's Order Paper on the Adjournment.

Mr. Sweetman:  I should like to raise to-morrow morning on the Order of Business the question of the business and the sittings for the rest of the session.

Mr. Corry:  I should like to raise the subject matter of Question No. 87 on the Order Paper on the Adjournment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:  The Chair will communicate with the Deputies.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:  Seanad Éireann has passed the following Resolution, in which the concurrence of Dáil Éireann is desired:—

Go bhfuil sé oiriúnach Bille na Míngeacha Millteacha agus na Loitmhíola (Comhdhlúthú), 1957, a chur faoi bhráid an Bhuan-Chomh-Choiste um Billí Comhdhlúite.

That it is expedient that the Destructive Insects and Pests (Consolidation) Bill, 1957, be referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Aire Talmhaíochta Gníomhaitheach (Proinsias Mac Aogáin):  Tairgim:—

Go n-aontaíonn an Dáil leis an Seanad ina Rún a cuireadh in iúl don Dáil an 13ú lá de Shamhain, 1957, go bhfuil sé oiriúnach Bille na Míngeacha Millteacha agus na Loitmhíola (Comhdhlúthú), 1957, a chur faoi bhráid an Bhuan-Chomh-Choiste um Bille Comhdhlúite.

[736] That the Dáil concur with the Seanad in its Resolution communicated to the Dáil the 13th day of November, 1957, that it is expedient that the Destructive Insects and Pests (Consolidation) Bill, 1957, be referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

This is one of these agreed Consolidation Bills.

Question put and agreed to.

Seanad to be informed accordingly.

Leave granted to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to provide for fixing maximum charges for gas, to remove the limit on contributions by gas undertakers to the gas fund and to provide for other matters connected with the matters aforesaid.—(Minister for Industry and Commerce.)

Mr. Sweetman:  The Bill to be circulated at once, I presume?

Mr. S. Lemass:  Yes.

Second Stage ordered for Wednesday, 27th November, 1957.

Leave granted to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to amend the Local Loans Fund Acts, 1955 to 1956.— (Minister for Finance.)

Dr. Ryan:  The Bill is ready for circulation.

Second Stage ordered for Wednesday, 27th November.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. S. Lemass):  I move:—

That leave be given by the Dáil to introduce the following Supplementary Estimate for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, namely:—

Vote No. 51 (Transport and Marine Services).

[737] Leave granted.

Ordered: That the Supplementary Estimate be taken on Wednesday, 27th November.

Minister for Finance (Dr. Ryan):  I move:—

That Dáil Éireann approves the following Order in draft:—

State Guarantees Act, 1954 (Amendment of Schedule) Order, 1957,

a copy of which Order in draft has been laid before the House.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. S. Lemass):  The purpose of the draft Order to which this motion refers is to provide the Dundalk Engineering Works with working capital by way of bank borrowing guaranteed by the Minister for Finance. Under the State Guarantees Act of 1954, the Minister for Finance may guarantee, both as to principal and interest, borrowing by a body scheduled under that Act within the limits specified under the Schedule. Section 9 of the State Guarantees Act empowers the Government, by Order, to add a body to the Schedule and to specify the limit by which borrowing by that body may be guaranteed.

A draft of the Order must be laid before each of the two Houses of the Oireachtas and an Order may not be made until a motion approving of the draft Order has been passed by each House. It is proposed in the draft Order to add the Dundalk Engineering Works to the Schedule of the State Guarantees Act and to insert a sum of £500,000 as the maximum amount which may be guaranteed by the Minister for Finance.

The likelihood of problems arising which would have a prejudicial effect upon the maintenance of employment in the Dundalk railway workshops became clear for the first time in 1955 when the Minister of Commerce in Belfast informed my predecessor of his intention to cease paying subsidies in [738] respect of three of the cross-Border lines of the G.N.R. system.

It became still more obvious when, at a somewhat later date, he communicated his intention to close down also the Six County internal line between Portadown and Derry. The implementation of these two decisions involved the disappearance of almost two-thirds of the total mileage of line in the G.N.R. system and obviously that was likely to involve corresponding curtailment of the amount of the railway work available for the Dundalk workshops. Shortly after I resumed office as Minister for Industry and Commerce this problem was brought to my notice, and after some preliminary communications, I went to Belfast for the purpose of discussing it with the Minister of Commerce there.

I found that the position was even more urgent than I had at first assumed because, though Lord Glentoran agreed during the course of our discussions to keep open for at least two years the line from Portadown to Derry, he informed me of his intention to exercise his right under the agreement about the G.N.R. to terminate the whole agreement at the end of the preliminary five-year period for which it was expressed to run. The agreement was so framed that both parties to it were bound by it for a minimum period of five years, but either could give notice to terminate it after that five-year period.

The Minister of Commerce in Belfast informed me that he intended to give notice to terminate the agreement when the five-year period had expired, on October 30th, 1958. It was clear that the termination of the agreement would bring the prospects of maintaining activity and employment in the Dundalk railway workshops back to the position they were in in 1953, before the agreement was made. Deputies will remember that, in 1953, it was proposed by the Belfast authorities to divide the G.N.R. into two parts, one part to be administered by the Ulster Transport Authority in Belfast and the other part to be left to whatever arrangement we thought fit to apply to it here. By reason of the agreement [739] made in 1953, that prospect was removed for the time being. In the course of those negotiations, the position of the Dundalk workshops was very much on the centre of the table, and indeed I made it clear that apart from any more general consideration, the immediate practical interest we had in preserving the integrity of the G.N.R. system was the fact that these workshops, which constituted the main workshops of the system, were located in Dundalk.

The position which appeared likely to emerge as a result of the notice of intention to terminate that agreement was similar to that which we faced before the agreement was made. Because of the implications of that announcement, I gave the matter of the Dundalk workshops the most urgent consideration. These workshops are in a somewhat different position from that of other properties entrusted to the management of the G.N.R. Board. The agreement of 1953 provided that the physical assets of the G.N.R. in the Twenty-Six Counties would be vested in the Minister for Industry and Commerce here and the physical assets in the Six Counties vested in the Ulster Transport Authority; but the Dundalk workshops were put into a special category.

These workshops are the property of the G.N.R. Board. There is special provision regarding them in the agreement and indeed it was inserted in the agreement at our insistence, because it was intended to provide thereby for the retention by the joint board of the Dundalk workshops as the main workshops of the whole system. In order to give them the protection which it was desired to give them they were put into that special category as the property of the joint board.

If the joint board was terminated on the termination of the agreement presumably some arrangement would have to be made regarding its assets and the workshops, as the property of the board, would presumably be regarded as part of its assets to be disposed of, the proceeds if any to be divided between the two parties to the agreement. [740] I felt that situation would be unsatisfactory in the extreme. While one could contemplate acquiring the workshops on the termination of the G.N.R. Board, it was certain that there would be a period of difficulty before any alternative arrangements in regard to the utilisation of these workshops could be completed. The uncertainty that would prevail amongst the employees in the workshops would be bound to have a serious effect on their morale and efficiency and the time that would be available fur their reorganisation or re-equipment, to enable new forms of activity to be developed for them, would be inadequate.

Already I felt that the time available to me to make alternative arrangements, and to get supplementary activities undertaken in the shops was insufficient, but, such as it was, I was anxious to make full use of it so that the minimum difficulty would emerge when the G.N.R. ceased to exist, with the least possible dislocation of employment. Accordingly, I opened negotiations with the Minister of Commerce in Belfast, with a view to securing his concurrence in an arrangement which would enable the reorganisation and realignment of the shops to begin at once. In the course of the negotiations, some legal and other problems emerged, but finally agreement was reached in principle for the leasing of the shops to a new company, on a basis which would involve no loss to the G.N.R. Board, which would ensure that all the work which the shops would ordinarily do for the G.N.R. Board would continue to be done there, so long as the G.N.R. Board remained in existence, and at the same time, give the necessary freedom of action to develop the workshops to undertake ordinary commercial engineering business.

In the meantime, and in anticipation of the satisfactory outcome of the negotiations with the authorities in Belfast, we bad taken steps to set up a new company which we called the Dundalk Engineering Works. Indeed, before any final agreement was recorded, negotiations had been opened between the new company and the [741] G.N.R. Board for the taking over of the workshops, for the allocation, valuation and disposal of the stocks of material in the works, for arranging the continuation of the normal work done in the shops for the G.N.R., and also for the transfer to the new company of the staff employed in, and in connection with, the works.

These negotiations were very involved and intricate and indeed while they are almost completed now, they have not been quite finalised. The actual lease has not yet been completed. The transfer of the shops to the new company has not yet taken place, but I hope it will be settled soon. I had in mind an earlier date for the completion of these arrangements, but the multitude of details which arose for settlement made that impossible.

When the new company was set up and, while all these other discussions and negotiations were going on, it was directed, on the assumption that the arrangements for the leasing of the shops to the company would be satisfactorily concluded, to consider and investigate all possibilities for the development of commercial engineering activities there on a scale which would hold out a fair prospect of maintaining employment in the shops.

Deputies will appreciate that in order to develop at Dundalk commercial engineering activities on that scale, considerable working capital will be required. For the time being, the new company will have these shops on lease only and, consequently, will not possess assets which could be made available as security for borrowing in the ordinary way. That is why it is necessary to support its borrowing by a State guarantee, to put the State credit behind the undertaking.

The company has already tendered for large contracts abroad. Naturally, we hope it will be successful in securing some or all of the contracts which it is seeking. On the assumption that it may be successful in securing these contracts or some other contracts of equivalent dimensions and that certain other plans which it has under consideration [742] can proceed, it is estimated that a working capital of approximately £500,000 may be required.

It is, of course, important that the company should be in a position to tackle vigorously and without any financial impediment the task of developing new activities. I want to be most careful in not creating any impression that the arrangements made to date put beyond doubt the future of the Dundalk shops. The board of the new company have been given an immense and very difficult task indeed. Neither they nor I can guarantee success. Success will, in the main, depend upon the competence with which the undertaking is directed. It will depend upon the opportunities for the development of new forms of engineering activity in Dundalk which may arise and it will depend particularly upon the energy and enthusiasm with which the workers in the shops face the job of building up the efficiency of the works in a way which will enhance the prospects of developing new commercial activities and particularly of obtaining export business for the products.

Over 1,000 workers are involved. The establishment of a new enterprise in this country employing 1,000 skilled, adult male workers would be a big achievement at any time, but the preservation of employment on that scale at Dundalk is as big an undertaking to face and nobody has any illusions about its dimensions. However, it is, I suppose, possible to decide that this problem would have arisen at some time. Later in the month, we will be discussing future transport policy here and I should imagine that Deputies will have views to express as to the part the railways will play in the future transport system of the country, but whatever views we may have about that, I suppose there are not many who would confidently predict that railways will certainly be in operation here ten, 15 or 25 years from now — certainly not on the scale on which they are now operating.

At some stage during that period, the country would have had to face up to a surplus of railway workshop capacity and it would have to consider what measures could be taken to utilise that surplus capacity in some other direction [743] which would benefit the country and preserve the employment involved. If I am right in my belief that this situation would have arisen some time, we may as well face it now as any other time. Indeed, if the outcome of this effort which is being made to transform the Dundalk railway workshops into a general engineering undertaking of substantial size is successful, then this situation may prove to be all for the best.

There are quite a number of subsidiary problems arising out of the transfer of those workshops to a new company, not all of which have been resolved, although, I think, that all have been considered and discussed with the people concerned. If I express an element of doubt as to whether or not we have covered all in our discussions to date, it is because quite a number of new problems are emerging from the complicated structure of the arrangements affecting staffs which operated under the G.N.R. Board and, indeed, I suppose operates in any railway undertaking of that kind. These negotiations and discussions covered such matters as the pension fund applying to the workers in the Dundalk shops, the very substantial deficit in that fund, the compensation rights of salaried staff which, naturally, the people concerned would be anxious to preserve until they could be secured and a number of similar matters of that kind, some considerably intricate, some more simple I had discussions with the representatives of the trade unions concerned in connection with these matters. Indeed, I heard, during the course of these discussions, a few new problems that I did not even know existed but which will now be dealt with. There have been discussions between these unions and the management of the new company and there have been almost continuous discussions between the board of the new company and the existing G.N.R. Board.

It is obvious that the solution of a number of those problems will involve legislation and it will be presented to the Dáil in due course. In the meantime, however, I am satisfied that [744] suitable and acceptable working conditions can be completed.

I recommend this motion to the Dáil. I am certain that members of the Dáil will have no difficulty in concurring. The enterprise with which this new company is being entrusted in Dundalk is a major enterprise. It certainly could not be expected to carry it through without finance and the purpose of this motion is to enable them to get that finance through negotiation with bankers supported by the State guarantee which will be given as soon as this motion is passed.

Mr. Sweetman:  Would the Minister answer a few specific questions? Is this a private or public company? Is it a company the share capital of which has been subscribed by private individuals or a company the share capital of which has been provided by the Minister for Finance? The Minister might save trouble if——

Mr. S. Lemass:  At the moment it is a company with £100 capital all of which is held by the Minister for Finance. I should not like to suggest, however, that that may be the permanent position. It certainly will be the position for some time but I would contemplate the possibility, assuming this company succeeds in developing commercial engineering activities in Dundalk on a scale which would justify it, the formation of a different type of company and possibly a public issue of shares in that company.

Mr. Sweetman:  The Minister mentioned that the works were at present leased to the company. He also mentioned the question of purchase at a later date. Did I understand that the term of the lease is until such time as the G.N.R. position is cleared up or the undertaking closed down? I think it is a desirable thing that the facts should be put on the records of the House before the guarantee is given. We are all in favour of the guarantee.

Mr. S. Lemass:  My original idea was that in so far as the termination of the Great Northern Company agreement would involve the transfer of the [745] workshops to a new undertaking at some time, we should take time by the forelock and do it now. Transfer on that basis proved difficult for legal reasons and, therefore, this lease arrangement was made instead. The workshops are leased to the new company on a basis which, I think, does not involve any substantial payment by the company to the G.N.R. Obviously, there will be a new situation on the 30th October, 1958, assuming the termination of the agreement is then effected. At that time I would contemplate that this company would then come into the ownership of the property.

Mr. Sweetman:  Does the Minister contemplate that will be the time when the legislation he has indicated would come before the House?

Mr. S. Lemass:  No. I think it may be necessary to have legislation before that.

Mr. Sweetman:  We would be quite satisfied with it not later than that date.

Mr. S. Lemass:  It may be necessary to make earlier arrangements in respect of pension rights and compensation rights so as to preserve those rights during that transition period but I should not like to say so definitely. I certainly think that the people concerned would like to see these rights put upon a statutory basis as soon as possible and I should like to meet them in that respect.

Mr. Sweetman:  From what I gather, the present situation is that this Order enables the Minister for Finance to guarantee the company of which he is the sole shareholder. Is not that the present situation?

Mr. S. Lemass:  That is right.

Mr. Norton:  I do not think that there will be any objection to the Minister giving the guarantee which is sought in the motion but I think it would be unwise if we were to imagine that giving this guarantee is going to provide a solution for all the problems which spin around the Dundalk workshops. There is no doubt in the world [746] of the intention of the Northern Government to close down railways entirely in the Six Counties. They have closed a number of their short internal lines. They have indicated they propose to close cross-Border lines or to accept no more financial responsibility for them. At present I think they have got three lines and perhaps a small line to Bangor. They have the Belfast to the Border line; the Belfast to Derry line via Portadown; the Belfast to Derry line via Portrush and, I think, a line from Belfast to Bangor.

They have indicated already that they intend to close one of the lines to Derry and the line that is going to be closed is the one that will hit Tyrone and Fermanagh very badly. It is the line between Portadown and Derry which is a cross-Border line for about ten or 15 miles where it runs into our territory at Donegal. It is only a matter of a short time until that line goes and then the Six Counties will have left the Belfast to the Border line, the small line from Bangor to Belfast and the line from Belfast to Derry. I think they will follow pretty soon because the Northern Government have declared that they regard the Six Counties as too small an area to maintain an internal railway system and they have fully convinced themselves, the cost of providing substitute transport notwithstanding, that it is much better for their economy to provide lorries and buses than it is to maintain the railway system in the Six Counties.

The Dundalk workshops have had a rather difficult economic career notwithstanding the existence of a fully developed transport system in the Six Counties. We must visualise the workshops against a new background, the background that a number of lines in the Six Counties have gone, that others are on the way out and others have had preliminary notice of closing certain of the lines served upon them. The Dundalk workshops are, therefore, left in the position that, being faced with the certainty that they will lose a substantial amount of trade from their former customer, the G.N.R., they must consider whether it will be [747] possible for them to find alternative work in the commercial market which will enable them to maintain their current volume of employment.

At all events, the economics of the Dundalk workshops must be considered against the background that in the course of time — and I do not think it will be very long—if the Northern Government maintains its present attitude, they will get very little, if indeed any, railway work from the Six Counties. It must be remembered also that the G.N.R. have workshops in Belfast and I imagine the Belfast workshops will get a fair amount of work, particularly when the Dundalk workshops are owned by or on behalf of this Government. I suspect, therefore, that some of the possible work will be transferred to the Belfast workshops and that the Northern Government will see that as much of the work as possible will be done there, especially when they are clear of the financial responsibilities for maintaining the Dundalk workshops.

Any examination of the prospects before the Dundalk workshops must take cognisance of that rather wintry background which, I fear, does not spell out an optimistic future for them. It may, of course, be possible that the Dundalk workshops will get work in the commercial market. I doubt very much about the possibilities of getting substantial work in continental markets because continental engineering firms are not only highly developed but highly equipped for engineering work, and the cost of importing steel and iron here is greater than the price at which these raw materials are available in continental countries. Anybody who operates with steel or pig iron here knows perfectly well that he operates at once at a competitive disadvantage against anybody who uses these raw materials either in Britain or the Six Counties. That is one of the disadvantages which the Dundalk workshops will have in competing in markets where the raw material is cheaper than that raw material can be purchased for importation at Dundalk.

There is another problem to which some consideration should be given. As far as my recollection serves me, [748] there was an examination of the efficiency of the Dundalk workshops with a view to placing the establishment on a more efficient and more competitive basis and if the Minister has not read that report he ought to do so, though I hope he has read it in his consideration of this matter. It does not disclose any high target of efficiency in the organisation of the place. I pass no derogatory comment whatever on the skill of the people employed there. Some of the finest craftsmen in the country are employed in the Dundalk workshops, but even a fine craftsman needs competent direction on that job. It will be found that the deficiencies in the Dundalk workshops are weaknesses at the top level and that a scheme of organisation exists there which does not give the works an opportunity of doing the work as efficiently as it could be done if the top stratum responsible for the running of the works were to plan the works in a manner that would give a much better return. The new directors will have a pretty plateful to get the works organised in such a way that the skill of the operatives there, which is well known, can be utilised in an economically rewarding way under the new régime there.

I should like to ask the Minister what is the position in respect of workers who are now employed by the G.N.R. and who may be transferred to the Dundalk Engineering Works. Many of these workers either have pension rights or at least have a moral claim or perhaps a legal claim to compensation in the event of their being rendered redundant or in the event of their being dismissed as a result of the closing of all or portion of the lines. It would be obviously unfair to transfer them to the Dundalk Engineering Works without making some provision for whatever pension rights have accrued to them. While you could transfer them to employment at present in the Dundalk works, the future of the works might be such that they could not retain their employment there. Therefore, unless something is done for them by legislation they run the risk of falling between two stools. I hope the Minister, by what he has said, concedes that some provision should [749] be made whereby a G.N.R. employee who is transferred to the new Dundalk works will have held for him whatever pension rights he has at present and that he will be able to draw on those rights and have them fully recognised if he loses his employment in the new engineering works.

I think the position of those people should be safeguarded by legislation and that the liability of some organisation to pay them compensation should be clearly established by statute, so that their rights will not be surrounded by any doubts in the event of their subsequently losing their employment or when the time comes for them to retire in the ordinary way.

I should like also to ask the Minister if it is possible for him to disclose what the lease terms are—in other words, what sum of money the new company is paying to the G.N.R. for the lease of the premises, the lease of the works and the use of the equipment there; whether there are any maintenance conditions imposed in the lease; and, generally speaking, what the terms are under which the works will be leased.

I should like in addition to get some further information as to what the position will be when the G.N.R., as now constituted as a unified company, will cease to exist next year. Both Governments have an interest in the Dundalk works. I suppose one could physically dispose of the works and parcel out the proceeds between the two Governments; but I take it that what we are doing to-day in approving this Order is an indication that at some date in the future the Dundalk works and their equipment will be valued and that we, who apparently desire to run the works as a going concern under the name of Dundalk Engineering Works, will pay to the Six County Government whatever is assumed to be their rights in the works. In other words, it is not contemplated closing down the works and selling it and then trying to restart by putting the fragments together again. I take it the intention is that, having ascertained the value of the works, we would pay over—by a lump sum or by [750] instalments or by some other arrangements—the interest which the Six Counties have in the works. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us at this stage whether that is the course on which the company proposes to embark.

I should like to ascertain whether any consideration was given to the question of the Dundalk works operating as a joint concern by the Six-County Government and the Twenty-Six County Government. Was any suggestion made that the two Governments would find the necessary capital or the necessary guarantees to operate the works, or was that proposition ever put to the Six-County Government; and, if so, perhaps the Minister could indicate what the reaction was?

As I said at the outset, I think the House generally will approve this Order. An extremely difficult situation has been thrown up by the transport developments in the Six Counties, possibly aggravated by the transport developments here in the course of time. I think it is only right that every possibility should be examined of maintaining the Dundalk Engineering Works and I hope that the works will be able to operate satisfactorily and profitably as a commercial concern. At this stage, however, we should recognise that it is in the nature of an experiment and that there is less than a calculated risk involved in what we are doing. The company will have considerable difficulties and every governmental help and commercial ingenuity will have to be used by the Government and by the directors of the company in order to maintain the present very substantial volume of employment which is provided at the Dundalk works. I agree that every possible effort should be made, through the provision of the necessary guarantees, to save the very large number of skilled workers and their families from the certainty of emigration if nothing were done to maintain the potential output of the engineering works at Dundalk.

Mr. Coburn:  I welcome this Order very sincerely—representing as I do that part of the County Louth. I, too, [751] should like the Minister to give some more specific details of the working arrangements which he has made with this new company. I should like him to say whether this money, which will be provided on loan to the new company, will be used for the renewal of existing plant, the renovation of workshops, or, in part at least, to pay compensation and pensions to the men who will become redundant on the change over. Again, will it be used as a prop to wages until such time as orders come rolling in to the new company?

Deputy Norton hit on the most important aspect of this matter when he referred to the compensation item. I am informed that the men have obtained legal opinion to the effect that they are entitled to compensation and, as the Minister knows, he saw them recently and discussed that issue with them. He also told them that he could not pronounce on that matter with any sense of finality, that he would need to have at his side the Minister for Finance.

Mr. S. Lemass:  Oh, no; on the legal aspect of that I could not have been more definite.

Mr. Coburn:  I should like also to deal with the work which is being done at the present time in the workshops in Dundalk. If I construe the agreement aright, I understand that next October the existing repair work which is done in Dundalk will be transferred to Northern Ireland and C.I.E. respectively, that C.I.E. will take over the repairs of all the buses and all the road vehicles and they will be responsible. As the Minister has said, they have been instructed, as he calls it, to take over such repair work. I would like him to define what he means by “instructed to take over.” Will it be the case that C.I.E. will do the work in C.I.E. workshops, or will it be the case that the work will be done for C.I.E. in Dundalk as a sort of sub-contract?

I should like to join with the Minister and other speakers who have expressed [752] the hope and the wish that the new company will be a success. In this competitive age, their task will be very difficult and in my opinion that task will be made all the more easy if the men co-operate in a spirit of goodwill and honest endeavour. It will be up to them, too, and not only up to the directors and those at the top. It will be up to the men whose interests are at stake to co-operate in whatever plans are being prepared for this company.

I should like to stress the compensation aspect. A lot of men fear that while no men will be dismissed when this new company takes over, after a few months they will be dismissed and they will be without any compensation rights or any pension rights. The Minister said that the pension fund had a deficit and that it was being subsidised by the Government. I hope that, if possible, that position will continue at least until such time as the new company is on a solid footing.

Mr. S. Lemass:  It is quite true, of course, as Deputy Norton said, that this situation at Dundalk arises from a change of policy regarding public transport services in the Six-County area. The agreement of 1953 would hardly have been possible at all—nor, indeed, would we have been very much interested in it—were it not for the fact that there was at that time uniformity in the main aspects of transport policy as applied in each area. We here and they in Belfast were seeking to preserve the operation of railways and to that end were limiting the competition to which they were subjected in respect of freight business from road hauliers. If there had been in 1953 the intention in Belfast to close down railway lines and to have a free-for-all in respect of road freight business, the prospect of the G.N.R. Board making a profit, or breaking even, would have been so remote that we would not, I think, have been interested in the proposition that we should buy out the owners of what was then the privately-owned G.N.R. Company.

If I have any feeling in this matter, [753] it is one of disappointment. The proposition which I put to the Dáil in 1953, which involved the payment by us of half the purchase price of the undertaking, to the extent of £2,250,000, was based upon the expectation that policy generally in respect of transport in both areas would continue to develop upon the lines then laid down and that no great divergence in policy would develop at any future time. There has been obviously an almost complete change of policy in the Six-County area. The decision now is to strip down the railway system to the minimum mileage and to make it almost impossible for that system, in my view, ever to make a profit, by allowing a complete free-for-all in road freight operation.

However, whatever the “might-have-beens” are, the fact is that we have been informed that this agreement is going to terminate. That will create a situation in which the only part of the Great Northern system which will be our concern will be the railway line from Dublin to the Border and the road passenger and freight services which it operates in the Twenty-Six County area. I think most people will agree that it would be foolish to keep a separate organisation in existence to operate that small mileage of line, that we would not require two superstructures of management to look after two divided transport undertakings and that the only sensible course, when that happens, will be to amalgamate all our internal transport services in one undertaking. Therefore, it is to be assumed that the G.N.R., as a separate entity, will cease to exist, although there will certainly be some working arrangement between the two transport authorities for the operation of railway services upon the Dublin-Belfast line which will continue to be open.

Deputy Norton is somewhat doubtful about the prospect of getting commercial engineering activities into the Dundalk workshops on a scale which will preserve the present volume of employment there. Naturally, we are all doubtful about that. I stressed in my opening remarks the magnitude of the task which we have given to this [754] new company. However, I have some reason to think that they may succeed. At present they are endeavouring to obtain export business of the kind for which the works are at present equipped, as a first-move. If they succeed in that, it will case the problem of transition very considerably. In the meantime, of course, various other possibilities are being investigated.

Deputy Coburn asked what this £500,000 is for. It is for working capital for the undertaking. It is not for the payment of compensation, it is not for supporting wages, it is not for any purpose whatever except to enable this company, if they get an order for any type of equipment, to buy the materials, to pay the wages, and do all the work involved in delivering the goods such as any commercial enterprise would have to do. It is working capital in that sense of the term. If the company ultimately produce a proposition for some major change in the character of the works at Dundalk, a change which will involve the purchase of new equipment, then they will probably have to come seeking additional capital for the purpose. I say “probably” because one is now guessing as to what such arrangements may involve in money and as to what other sources of capital may be open to the company. What we are thinking of in this sum is merely working capital so that as soon as they take over the works they can carry it on, doing all the commercial operations which will be involved in carrying it on.

There was an investigation of the efficiency of the works carried out by one of these firms of consulting experts and I think some difficulty may have arisen in the works by reason of that investigation, but whatever information that investigation disclosed regarding the suitability of existing equipment from the viewpoint of a railway workshop will be available to the new management and will, of course, be taken into account by them. However, that is less important now than it was previously.

The representatives of the new company have met the trade unions and have discussed with them the changes [755] of methods that will necessarily be involved in transferring a railway workshop into a commercial engineering undertaking, changes which may even involve some alteration in methods of remuneration, certainly some alteration in the tempo of operations, and generally they found the unions completely co-operative and most anxious to facilitate the bringing about of those changes in a manner which will contribute to the success of the whole enterprise.

The position regarding pensions for workers in the shops is this: Some of them have meagre pension rights based upon a fund. Some others have what might be called rights based upon traditional practice. The fund, such as it is, is in deficit but the payment of the pensions is guaranteed by the Great Northern Board even though the fund is in deficit and what I told the unions was that I would put as guarantor of the payment of the pensions some other authority instead of the G.N.R. Company whose guarantee would be at least as effective, probably a great deal more effective.

So far as compensation is concerned, the workers in the shops have no statutory compensation rights. Indeed, the G.N.R. Act was very tightly drawn so far as compensation rights for workers made redundant by the closing of services were concerned. It is different in many respects from the Acts that apply to C.I.E. In the case of C.I.E. a worker becomes entitled to compensation if he loses employment by reason of the closing down of a railway service. In the case of the G.N.R. Company a worker is entitled to compensation only if he was directly employed upon the operation of the service that was closed. That will involve some problems which we will have to resolve but it clearly indicates that the workers employed in the shops have not got the right to compensation and, indeed, one would perhaps doubt the value of compensation rights if they existed against the G.N.R. Board when the board goes into liquidation.

There are, however, problems and anxieties in that regard and while I [756] should like to avoid undertaking statutory obligations I think that it will be the general aim of all concerned to get rid of those problems and anxieties in a way which will leave no permanent discontent behind.

Deputy Coburn spoke about the possibility of workers being disemployed in some months' time. While I hope, and the management of the new company hope, that they will be able to develop a programme of works which will prevent that, it should be clear that we just cannot guarantee that the particular workers now employed at Dundalk workshops will always be employed there in future. Most of them, I think, will. Indeed, the great asset of these shops is not the machinery or the buildings that are there; it is the skill of the workers and it is that asset that has to be turned into revenue to maintain the shops.

Therefore, so far as these workers are concerned there will be every desire to retain their services and to utilise them for the benefit of the new enterprise but, of course, it will be appreciated that the Dundalk Engineering Works will be in much the same position as the Cement Company, the Sugar Company or any of these large-scale enterprises that the State here has fostered and there may be from time to time some fluctuations in employment. The usual procedure is to deal with these matters on the basis of agreements made between the trade unions representing the workers and the management concerned and, as I said, the trade unions and the management in this case have already got together and have discussed these problems and I think can be said to be working in concert to make good the whole idea which is involved here.

Mr. Norton:  May I put this question? I take it the Minister would examine sympathetically the question of making provision for a worker who may be transferred to the Dundalk Engineering Works so as to ensure that whatever claims he had against the G.N.R. from a superannuation point of view he will carry with him?

Mr. S. Lemass:  That is why I [757] mentioned the possible need for legislation because I think the actual terms of the pension scheme would require the repayment to the worker of his contributions to the fund when he ceases to be employed by the G.N.R. Obviously, it would be preferable to carry over that fund to the new undertaking and to preserve the worker's pension rights through the fund rather than to try to deal with them on an individual basis of giving back the worker's contribution and having to collect them from him again. I think that will be agreed.

The pensions provided in the G.N.R. pension scheme are, as I said, very meagre and I should hope that in time this company will be able to develop revenues which will enable them to supplement them.

The Deputy asked for the terms of the lease. I cannot give details but I think it roughly means that the amount which will be paid by the new company to the G.N.R. Board will be equivalent to the amount of local rates that the G.N.R. Board will pay on the works. The actual net amount of money passing will not be considerable.

As to the future, I would hesitate to discuss that. It is obviously a matter which will have to be subject to negotiation with the people in Belfast. We have at the moment an indication of their intention to give notice to terminate this agreement on 30th October, 1958. The actual formal notice has not been communicated and before that, presumably, there must be quite detailed negotiations regarding the process by which the agreement may be wound up, including the division of the assets of the undertaking.

Having regard to all the circumstances involved, I think we should certainly be able to get the transfer of the physical assets of the Dundalk workshop to the new company without capital liability. I should like to think that the joint ownership of these works as general engineering works would be feasible and it is certainly a possibility that will be explored if there is the slightest prospect of it being worth while doing so, but I think we must realistically face up to the probability that these works are now, and will [758] remain, our sole responsibility and that it depends on our own efforts whether we can carry out this great enterprise and, by doing so, preserve employment there.

There is perhaps one other point to which I should refer. Deputy Coburn talked about the repair and maintenance of buses now operated by the G.N.R. on their system being transferred to C.I.E. There may be some misunderstanding there. It is certainly intended that the obligation to provide road passenger and freight services in the G.N.R. area shall become the obligation of C.I.E. when the G.N.R. ceases to exist. By that time, of course, Dundalk workshops will be a separate commercial enterprise and the arrangements that may be made between the management of that workshop and C.I.E. for the repair and maintenance of road vehicles is a matter for negotiation between them.

I had to discourage the idea that the problem of Dundalk would be solved by any transfer of work from Inchicore or any other of the C.I.E. shops, but there will be on everybody's part the intention of keeping the Dundalk workshops going over this initial and difficult period in the expectation that at the end of that period there will be available for them commercial work in sufficient quantity to ensure that there will be no contraction of employment there. If we are lucky and if the Dundalk Engineering Works succeed in getting some contracts on a substantial scale for rail or other equipment which will keep the shops fully occupied then there will be no problem at all, but if that does not happen and if there is surplus capacity unutilised by these contracts at Dundalk then it will be a matter of securing by consultation agreement to avail of it to the fullest extent possible.

While it is not possible for me to commit any of the State undertakings to give business to the Dundalk workshops I think it can be fairly assumed that will be desired, and particularly in respect of work that might otherwise go abroad there will be a general effort to divert that type of activity to Dundalk.

[759] This is a very big enterprise and we must not attempt to minimise the magnitude of the task given to those responsible for directing it but sufficient has come from the exploratory and investigatory work that has been done to give us some grounds for hope that it will succeed.

Question put and agreed to.

Aire na Gaeltachta (Micheál Ó Móráin):  Tairgim:—

Chun críche aon Achta a rithfear sa tsiosón seo do dhéanamh socruithe bhreise agus feabhsaithe chun na tionscail tuaithe atá anois á riaradh ag Roinn na Gaeltachta d'eagrú, a stiúradh agus d'fhorbairt, do dhéanamh socruithe chun tionscail nua agus scéimeanna somhaoineacha fostaíochta a thionscnamh sa Ghaeltacht, do bhunú Boird dá ngairmfear Gaeltarra Eireann, do mhíniú a chumhacht agus a dhualgas, d'aistriú na dtionscal tuaithe sin chun an Bhoird sin agus do dhéanamh socruithe i dtaobh nithe áirithe eile a bhaineas leis na nithe réamhráite, go bhfuil sé oiriúnach a údarú:—

(1) go n-íocfar leis an mBord i ngach bliain airgeadais, as airgead a shólathrós an tOireachtas, deontas de pé méid a cheadós Aire na Gaeltachta, le comhthoiliú an Aire Airgeadais, i leith caiteachais an Bhoird;

(2) go n-airleacfar as an bPríomh-Chiste nó a thoradh fáis pé suimeanna (nach mó san iomlán ná cúig chéad míle punt) a iarrfas an Bord ó am go ham chun a chumasú dhó a fheidhmeanna d'fheidhmiú nó a chomhlíonadh;

(3) go ndéanfar príomhshuim agus ús na n-urrús go léir a heiseofar faoin Acht sin a mhuirearú ar an bPríomh-Chiste nó a thoradh fáis agus d'íoc as an gcéanna; agus

(4) go n-íocfar as airgead a sholáthrós an tOireachtas an caiteachas [760] faoina raghfar ag riaradh an Achta sin.

Risteárd Ua Maolchatha:  Bhfuil fhios ag an Aire an bhfuil suim speisialta airgid le cur ins na tionscail seo?

Micheál Ó Móráin:  Níl sé socruithe fós, ach beidh sé.

Risteárd Ua Maolchatha:  An mbeidh Meastachán Breise i mbliana?

Micheál Ó Móráin:  Nílim cinnte ach b'fhéidir go mbeidh.

Cuireadh agus d'aontaíodh an cheist.

English Version of Money Resolution.

Mr. Moran:  I move:—

That for the purpose of any Act of the present session to make further and better provision for the organisation, conduct and development of the rural industries now administered by the Department of the Gaeltacht, to provide for the initiation of new industries and productive schemes of employment in the Gaeltacht, to establish a board to be known as Gaeltarra Eireann, to define its powers and duties, to transfer to it the said rural industries and to provide for certain other matters connected with the matters aforesaid it is expedient to authorise:—

(1) the payment in each financial year to the board, out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, of a grant of such amount as the Minister for the Gaeltacht, with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, may sanction towards the expenses of the board;

(2) the advance out of the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof of such sums (not exceeding in the aggregate five hundred thousand pounds) as the board may from time to time request for the purpose of enabling it to exercise or perform its functions;

(3) the charge on and payment out of the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof of the principal of and interest on all securities issued under such Act; and

[761] (4) the payment out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas of the expenses incurred in the administration of such Act.

Question put and agreed to.

Tuairiscíodh agus d'aontíodh an Rún.

English version:

Resolution reported and agreed to.

ALT 1.

Aire na Gaeltachta (Micheál Ó Móráin):  Tairgim leasú Uimh. 1:—

Ar leathanach 5, líne 29, i ndiaidh an fhocail “Teoranta” an méid seo a leanas a chur isteach “ná an scéim bailithe muirthorthaí atá ag gabháil leis sin”.

Mar is eol do Theachtaí cheana, b'fhéidir, déanann mo Roinn cuidiú a thabhairt maidir le bailiú feamainne d'eagrú agus ceannaítear feamainn ar bhonn gníomhaireachta thar ceann an ghnóluchta Arramara Teoranta. Ritheann sé liom gur féidir amach annseo go gceapfaí go mba chóir an obair sin d'aistriú chuig an mBord faoin mBille seo, cé go mbeadh sé deacair feidhmeanna na Roinne ina thaobh seo a mheas mar thionscal. Cun nach mbeidh dabht ann, áfach, beartaím an t-alt a leasú.

D'aontaíodh an leasú.

Cuireadh agus d'aontaíodh Alt 1 mar a leasaíodh é.

English version of Bill.

Mr. Moran:  I move amendment No. 1:—

In page 4, line 29, after “Teoranta” to insert “or the marine products collection scheme associated therewith”.

Deputies will remember that under Arramara Teoranta, arrangements are made for the collection of seaweed, and although I do not think it could be interpreted as an industry, in order to remove doubts I thought it advisable to move this amendment so that the position would be clear and that this work would not come under the new board.

[762]Mr. Lindsay:  We agree.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

ALT 2.

Pádraig Mac Loingsigh:  Tairgim leasú Uimh. 2:—

Ar leathnach 5, line 31, an méid seo a leanas a chur leis an alt:—

“ach ní cheapfaidh an lá sin roimh an lú lá d'Eanair, 1959.”

My objects in moving this amendment and in having it tabled, in the first place, were manifold. The date which I have set out here as 1st January, 1959, will not necessarily mean that the date must be so far extended, if the Minister can see his way to meet my point of view. Pursuant to the appointment of such a day, the Minister would normally nominate a chairman, managing director and three members of the board envisaged under the provisions of this Bill and I am assuming, not for purposes of argument, but as a matter of fact, that the people to be selected will be people of business experience, if possible, or if not, certainly people of business acumen and that they will be men, or in case they may not all be men, men or women of integrity versed in business methods and endowed with that necessary amount of the patriotic ingredient in their approach to these industries that will take them out of the category of those selected by reason of Party allegiance and that Party allegiance will not be accepted as compensation for lack of business experience or adequate business experience.

Some time ago in this House, apropos of this particular section of the Department of the Gaeltacht, I gave instances of the conduct and management of affairs in Gaeltarra Éireann, the import of which is sufficient in my opinion—and indeed sufficient in the opinion of many people outside the House and of many periodicals of influence and importance circulating in this country—as to give rise to grave concern. Within some short time past I again raised this question [763] of irregularities. I use the word “irregularities”——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:  I feel the Deputy is out of order in pursuing that line on this particular amendment and section. Might I point out that the section deals with the establishment day and the Deputy's amendment is “shall not appoint such day before 1st January, 1959”?

Mr. Lindsay:  My respectful submission is that I am giving reasons— perhaps they are not apparent so far— that will be adequate to show the Chair that there are substantial grounds for the postponement of the appointed day until the date I have specified in my amendment.

Within the recent past I have enumerated—not in the same detail as I did on the Vote for the Estimate for this Department—irregularities in the conduct and management of the Gaeltarra Éireann section of this Department. I use the word “irregularities” in deference to the fact, and only in deference to the fact, that these have not been proved in a proper arena, so far. They have not been so proved because I have been denied, and this House has been denied, by the Minister's predecessor, and again by the Minister himself on the Second Reading of this Bill, the opportunity of inquiring into the charges which I made.

I now repeat those charges, not verbatim, but as they are to be found in the relevant columns of the Dáil debates. I refrain from doing so verbatim because, subject to the approval of the Ceann Comhairle, Deputy Patrick O'Donnell and I have tabled a motion asking for a committee to be set up by the Committee of Selection with the usual powers to send for persons and records and to inquire generally into the conduct of affairs of this organisation within the Department known as Gaeltarra Éireann and with particular reference to the production and marketing of Gaeltarra Éireann goods over the last five years.

The Minister's predecessor says he examined all of the matters of which [764] I complain and that he did not see any need for an inquiry. The Minister himself says he has gone thoroughly into the matter and he does not see any reason why there should be an inquiry. The Minister's predecessor and the Minister himself have sufficient knowledge of a branch of our law as to know that these things merit, at least at this stage, a civil inquiry. It is for that reason I am asking the Minister to accept this amendment before an organisation like this is handed over to any board composed, as I assume it will be, of decent business men of high standards. Before that is done, I am asking that there will be a full and ample inquiry into the production and marketing and the affairs generally of this organisation. Otherwise, you will have a situation of affairs which I allege positively exists and has always existed in this organisation. You will be passing it over to a board which it will be possible to blame afterwards if anything goes wrong as a result of irregularities, which I positively assert exist at this moment and have existed over the past few years.

The Minister might meet me and meet this amendment this way. He might give me an undertaking that he will not appoint this establishment day until such time as this motion of Deputy O'Donnell and myself, if acceptable to the Ceann Comhairle, shall have been discussed fully here and this House has decided whether such a committee should be set up or not. This House will be the final arbiter on that.

I strongly commend to the Minister that such an inquiry should be held, not alone in the interests of people, apart from myself, who allege these things, but in the interests of the people against whom they are alleged. If the Minister gives me that undertaking that he will not appoint the establishment day prior to a full discussion and decision upon this motion, then I shall be content.

Micheál Ó Móráin:  Ní féidir dom glacadh leis an leasú seo. Ní fheicim go bhfuil aon chúis fhónta ann chun teacht i réim an bhoird a chur siar go ceann bliana. A mhalairt ar fad is fíor [765] mar tá gach aon chúis ann leis an mbord a bheith ann go luath. Tá géar-gha ann go mbainfí an tairbhe is mó ab fhéidir as na tionscail atá i gceist sa Bhille ar mhaithe le muintir na Gaeltachta a luaithe agus is féidir.

I cannot accept this amendment. I do not see the use of it, and I certainly cannot understand the reason of Deputy Lindsay in moving it. He asks that the appointment of this board be postponed for a very considerable time. It would appear that this whole Bill, to put such a board in charge of the affairs of Gaeltarra Éireann, has been hatching for years, and the suggestion of Deputy Lindsay now is that we should still sit on it for another couple of years in order that he can bring out, through some type of inquiry things he says he found wrong. I do not know what the purpose of that inquiry would be because the effect of it would be, in the Deputy's own words, to inquire into the operations of Gaeltarra Éireann over the last few years, during practically all of which time this section, first, under the Department of Lands and then, under the Department of the Gaeltacht, was under the authority and direction of Deputy Lindsay himself, and of his colleagues.

I do not want to go over all the matters that were discussed on Second Reading, but it is undeniably true that Deputy Lindsay was for a period Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Gaeltacht, and it is equally true he was himself Minister for the Gaeltacht for at least four or five months. During that period, he was in direct control and had direct responsibility for Gaeltarra Éireann. Those five months should have given him ample time to conduct all inquiries he thought necessary, or wanted, into that Department. I am not going into the details of this matter because I assume from what the Deputy has said we will have this matter before the Dáil in the form of a motion. Without going into the pros and cons, I suggest there is no sense to the amendment. It is essential that the new board should be appointed as soon as posible in the interests of the people of the Gaeltacht and in the interests of the industries which must be fostered and looked [766] after. If there were any substance whatever in the allegations of Deputy Lindsay, which I do not for a moment admit——

Mr. Lindsay:  That is a good word.

Mr. Moran:  If he thought there was something wrong with Gaeltarra Éireann, he should be the most anxious man in the House to have it placed under a new independent board in the interests of the people of the Gaeltacht.

Mr. Coogan:  Why did you not clean up the house first?

Mr. Moran:  Bí cúramach. I might clean up the Deputy. I want to say that the reasons advanced by Deputy Lindsay in moving this amendment do not commend themselves to me. I do not see that any purpose would be served by postponing the appointment of this board.

It is a matter of great urgency and has been considered for a long time by my predecessors in charge of this Department. In the interests of the industries concerned, this board should have been set up long ago, and it is self-evident in these times, with the position of the tweed industry abroad, that it is essential that a board of business men should exploit the situation in the interests of the people whom we say we serve here. I cannot see my way to accept this amendment.

Tarraingíodh siar an leasú, faoi chead.

English Version of Bill.

Mr. Lindsay:  I move amendment No. 2:

In page 4, line 30, to add to the section:-“but shall not appoint such day before 1st January, 1959.”

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

D'aontaíodh Alt 2.

English Version of Bill.

Section 2 agreed to.

ALT 3.

Tairgeadh an cheist: “Go bhfanfaidh Alt a 3 ina chuid den Bhille.”

Risteárd Ua Maolchatha:  Ba mhaith liom ceist a chur ar an Aire. Tá sé [767] luaite anseo go gcuirfear an Bord ar bun “chun na feidhmeanna a bheirtear dó leis an Acht seo a chomlíonadh.” Ba mhaith liom ceist a chur ar an Aire an bhfuil aon dualgas á chur ar an mBord chun labhairt na teangan ins na ceantracha Gaeltachta a chur chun cinn?

Micheál Ó Móráin:  Tuigim go bhfuil sé sin intuigthe sa Bhille.

Risteárd Ua Maolchatha:  Bhfuil sé sin san Bille in aon áit mar fheidhm?

Micheál Ó Móráin:  Sé mo thuairim nach bhfuil aon ghá leis. Bá mhaith liom an méid seo a rá: ta sé leagtha síos san Act faoinar cuireadh Roinn na Gaeltachta ar bun gurab é:—

“Feidhm do Roinn na Gaeltachta leas cultúrtha, sóisialach agus geilleagrach na Gaeltachta a chur chun cinn; cabhrú le caomhaint agus leathnú na Gaeilge mar ghnathurlabhra.”

Tá cumhacht fágtha agam agus mar sin de sílim nach bhfuil aon ghá le halt speisialta a chur isteach san Bhille seo.

Risteárd Ua Maolchatha:  Cá bhfuil se ráite san Bhille seo go bhfuil an chumhacht aige? Nach bhfuil sé ag cur an Bhoird speisialta seo ar bun? Más amhlaidh atá an scéal, caidé an chumhacht a bheadh ag an Aire le cur isteach ar an mBord chun cúrsaí na teangan a spreagadh? Ní dóigh liom go mbeidh aon chumhacht ag an Aire muna bhfuil aon scéim chumhachta san Bhille. Cá bhfuil an fheidhm sa Bhille seo a bhfuil baint aige leis an teanga? Má deireann an tAire go bhfuil an chumhacht aige cá bhfuil an chumhacht sin sa Bhille?

Micheál Ó Móráin:  Tuigim go bhfuil sé intuigthe sa Bhille. Tá an Bord seo faoi Roinn na Gaeltachta agus tá an dualgas orm na rudaí sin a chur in íul don Bhord. Tá cumhacht agam faoi Alt 32.

Risteárd Ua Maolchatha:  Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil aon bhaint aige sin leis.

Micheál Ó Móráin:  Beidh an Bord sin faoin Roinn.

Pádraig Mac Loingsigh:  Nach mbeidh an Bord seo neamhspleách?

[768]Micheál Ó Móráin:  Tá cumhacht agam an Bord a bhriseadh.

Risteárd Ua Maolchatha:  Is beag an leigheas é sin.

Micheál Ó Móráin:  Sin é an chumhacht is mó. Ar aon nós sílim go bhfuil sé intuigthe sa Bhille.

Risteárd Ua Maolchatha:  Ach sa chéad Alt eile, Alt 4, cuirtear síos go soléir na dualgaisí a bheidh ar an mBord. Conus is féidir leis an Aire a rá go bhfuil dualgas ann muna bhfuil sé curtha síos anseo? Má fhéachann an tAire ar Alt 4, chífhidh sé go bhfuil dualgaisí an Bhoird curtha síos ann. An bhfuil feidhmeanna nó dualgaisí ar an mBord seachas na dualgaisí atá in Alt 4? Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil.

Micheál Ó Móráin:  Féach ar Alt 4 (1):—

Is é dualgas an Bhoird na tionscail tuaithe a sheoladh, a rialú agus a bhainistí, na feidhmeanna d'fheidhmiú ina leith a bheas, díreach roimh an lá bunuithe, dílsithe san Aire agus, le toiliú an Aire, pé tionscail agus scéimeanna somhaoineacha fostaíochta eile is oiriúnach leis an mBord a sholáthar, a sheoladh, a rialú agus a bhainistí sa Ghaeltacht.

Nach bhfuil sé go soiléir ansin, ó bheith á labhairt ins an Roinn, fé mar a bhfuil sé, agus idir na daoine, mar a bhfuil siad anois. Ar chuma ar bith, is dóigh liom, faoin Acht eile, go bhfuil dualgas ar an Roinn agus go bhfuil dualgas orm faoin gceist seo agus beidh dualgas orm mar gheall ar an gceist seo freisin tar éis don Bhord neamhspleách seo a bheith ann. Beidh an dualgas céanna orm faoin gceist seo agus faoi cheist na Gaeilge uilig. Níl anseo ach rud amháin, tionscail, faoin mBille seo. Tá iomad rudaí eile faoin Roinn. Beidh dualgas maidir leis an teanga faoin Roinn agus faoin Aire.

Risteárd Ua Maolchatha:  In Alt 4 (1) deireann an tAire:—

“Is é dualgas an Bhoird na tionscail tuaithe a sheoladh, a rialú agus a bhainistí, na feidhmeanna d'fheidhmiú ina leith a bheas, díreach roimh an lá bunuithe, dílsithe san Aire agus, le toiliú an Aire, pé tionscail agus scéimeanna somhaoineacha [769] fostaíochta eile is oiriúnach leis an mbord a sholáthar, a sheoladh, a rialú agus a bhainistí sa Ghaeltacht.”

Má bhí dualgas ag baint leis an teanga á chomhlionadh ag an mbord, cad ina thaobh nach luaitear apseo é, fé mar a luaitear na ceithre dualgaisí eile? Ba mhaith loim, dá mba rud é go raibh dualgas ar an mbord céanna mar gheall ar an nGaeilge, go ndéarfadh an tAire conus a cuireadh an dualgas sin orthu agus cad iad na rialacháin a bhí ag baint leis na dualgaisí sin. Muna raibh siad ann, níl aon mhaith a bheith á rá go bhfuil sé sa mBille. Ba chóir go mbeadh sé scríofa agus curtha síos ann.

Rúnaí Parlaiminte don Aire Tionscail agus Tráchtála (Gearóid Mac Pharthaláin):  Nach bhfuil an dualgas sin ann cheana? Nach í sin an chúis go bhfuil na tionscail bunaithe ins an nGaeltacht? Nach í an chéad chuspóir í? Marach sin, ní bheadh a leithéid sin ann. Ní dóigh liom gur gá é sin a scríobhadh. Mholfainn, mar sin féin, don Aire, má tá aon sórt faitíos ar an Teachta go mbeadh an Bord nua seo faillitheach i dtaobh na Gaeilge, an Teachta a chur ar a shuaimhneas sa scéal agus pé leasa a ba mhaith leis an Teachta a chur isteach sa mBille a chur ann. Bíodh sin mar atá, ní dóigh liom go bhfuil aon chás déanta ag an Teachta faoi go mbeadh na baill faillitheach. Freisin, sa Bhille seo, nach bhfuil cead agus cumhacht ag an Aire agus ag an Rialtas éinne a chur as bheith ina bhall muna bhfuil siad sásta go bhfuil sé feiliúnach don obair atá ar siúl. Má tá duine faillitheach i dtaobh an Gaeilge a chur chun cinn sa Ghaeltacht, chomh fada is a bhaineas sé le bheith ina bhall den Bhord seo, sílim go mbeadh leathscéal ann agus lánchúis ag an Rialtas chun a bhallraíocht a chur ar ceal. Is maith liom go bhfuil an Teachta ag iarraidh é a bheith deimhneathach nach mbeidh faillitheacht den tsórt sin ann.

Risteárd Ua Maolchatha:  Níl rud ar bith uaim ach a bheith cinnte de sin.

Gearóid Mac Pharthaláin:  Má tá cumhacht ag an Rialtas éinne a chur as oifig in aon chás a luaitear anseo sa mBille, is dóigh liom go bhfuil an chúis [770] chlamhsáin atá ag an Teachta leigheasta go sásúil.

Risteárd Ua Maolchatha:  Tuigim an scéal anois. Is féidir Alt 3 a rith.

Cuireadh agus d'aontaíodh an cheist.

English Version of Bill.

Question—“That Section 3 stand part of the Bill”—put and agreed to.

ALT 4.

Micheál Ó Móráin:  Tairgim leasú 3:

I bhfo-alt (1), leathanach 7, líne 4, “toiliú an Aire”, a scrios agus “toiliú an Aire arna thabhairt tar éis dó dul i gcomhairle leis an Aire Tionscail agus Tráchtála”, a chur isteach ina ionad.

Sé cuspóir an leasuithe seo ná a chinntiú go ndéanfar beartas agus gníomhrachtaí an bhoird i leith tionscail nua a thionscnamh a chó-oirdniú leis an mbeartas ginearálta.

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the policy and the activities of the board in relation to the initiation of new industries will be coordinated with general policy in the matter. It is usual for the Department of Industry and Commerce to have some connection.

Mr. Blowick:  Would the Minister agree, if I might put it bluntly, that this is giving the Minister for Industry and Commerce rather too much of a say in the affairs of the board or in the affairs of a Minister for the Gaeltacht?

Mr. Moran:  I do not agree. I want to point out, and this gives me an opportunity of doing so, that there was a certain amount of criticism or allegations, shall I say, about unfair competition in other matters by Gaeltarra Éireann from other people engaged in similar businesses. I think it is undesirable that a State sponsored board should be allowed to start some industry that might unduly interfere with other existing industries in the country. For that reason, I think it is desirable that the Department of Industry and Commerce would be made aware of the fact before the [771] board would enter into pew commercial activities.

Mr. Lindsay:  In any event, it is only after consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The Minister for the Gaeltacht is not necessarily bound by what happens at that consultation.

Risteárd Ua Maolchatha:  Ós rud é gur féidir leis an Aire Tionscail agus Tráchtála dul i gcomhairle le hAire na Gaeltachta, má leigeann sé do thionscail ar bith in aon áit comhgarach don Ghaeltacht b'fhéidir go gcuirfeadh sé sin isteach ar roinnt oibre a bheadh beartaithe ag an mBord.

Gearóid Mac Pharthaláin:  Tá fhios ag an Teachta nach é an tAire Tionscail agus Tráchtála a cuireas tús leis na tionscail sin—gur dreamannaí príobháideacha a thosnaíos iad. Mar shampla, má théann siad isteach ins na háiteacha neamh-fhorbartha, tá cead acu deontas a fháil faoi Acht na Limistéirí Neamh-fhorbartha agus níl cead ag an Aire Tionscail agus Tráchtála cur isteach ar aon duine maidir le pé baile nó pé áit in a mbeidh an tionscail suite. Bíodh is go bhfaghann siad deontas airgid faoin Acht, tá a lán rogha acu laistigh des na limistéirí. Ní h-ionann an dá chás beag ná mór. I gcás amháin, tá cead ag an mBórd tionscail a roghnú agus áiteanna a phiocadh amach lena n-aghaidh. Sa chás eile, is ag dream phríobháideach a bhéas roghnú na n-áiteanna agus na dtoinscal. Ní dóigh liom go gcuirfidh an tAire Tionscail agus Tráchtála isteach air in aon chaoi.

Risteárd Ua Maolchatha:  An fhaíd a bheidh Aire againn atá comhgarach don Aire Tionscail agus Tráchtála.

D'aontaíodh an leasú.

English Version of Bill.

Mr. Moran:  I move amendment No. 3:—

In sub-section (1), page 6, line 4, to delete “with the consent of the Minister”, and substitute “with the consent of the Minister given after [772] consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce”.

Amendment agreed to.

Risteárd Ua Maolchatha:  Tairgim leasú Uimhir a 4:—

Roimh fho-alt (2), fo-alt nua a chur isteach mar leanas:—

Is é dualgas an Bhoird cabhrú le caomhaint agus leathnú na Gaeilge mar ghnáthurlabhra sa Ghaeltacht; agus chuige sin deimhin a dhéanamh de gurb í an Ghaeilge an ghnáth theanga ghnótha ins gach gné de ghnó gach tionscail tuaithe agus scéime somhaoineach fostaíochta a sholáthraíonn, a sheolann, a rialaíonn agus a bhainistíonn an bord sa Ghaeltacht.

Ón chaint a bhí againn ar an leasú deireanach, tuigfidh gach éinne go bhfuil dualgas ar an mBord nua seo cabhair a thabhairt don teanga agus an Ghaeilge a leathnú más féidir é. Féach ar an alt seo mar atá sé anois. Deireann sé:—

Is é dualgas an Bhoird na tionscail tuaithe a sheoladh, a rialú agus a bhainistí, na feidhmeanna d'fheidhmiú ina leith a bheas, díreach roimh an lá bunuithe, dílsithe san Aire agus, le toiliú an Aire, pé tionscail agus scéimeanna somhaoineacha fostaíochta eile is oiriúnach leis an mBord a sholáthar, a sheoladh, a rialú agus a bhainistí sa Ghaeltacht.

Leanann fó-alt (2):—

(2) Beidh ag an mBord na cumhachta go léir is gá chun na gcríoch a sonraítear sa bhfo-alt sin roimhe seo.

An dualgas agus an chumhacht. Má támuid i ndáiríre faoi shábháil na teangan, agus má támuid i ndáiríre faoi chabhair a thabhairt do mhuintir na Gaeltachta ina gcuid eacnaimíochta, ba cheart na focla seo a chur isteach san alt. Tar éis fo-ailt (1), ba cheart na focla seo a chur isteach:—

“( ) Is é dualgas an Bhoird cabhrú le caomhaint agus leathnú na Gaeilge mar ghnáthurlabhra sa Ghaeltacht; agus chuige sin deimhin a dhéanamh de gurb í an Ghaeilge an ghnáth-theanga ghnótha ins gach gné de ghnó gach tionscail tuaithe [773] agus scéime somhaoineach fostaíochta a sholáthraíonn, a sheolann, a rialaíonn agus a bhainistíonn an Bord sa Ghaeltacht.”

Is dóigh liom go gcaithfimid a chur in iúl do mhuintir na Gaeltachta go bhfuil rún againn an teanga a chaomhnadh agus a leathnú. Caithfimid a chur in iúl dóibh go mbeidh bord neamhspleách ann ag a mbeidh cumhacht tionscail tuaithe a chur ar bun sa Ghaeltacht chun é a chaomhnú agus a leathnú. Caithfidh Bord a thuiscint gur chuige sin atámaid, agus caithfidh muintir na Gaeltachta an tuiscint chéana a bheith acu. Tá fhios ag éinne faoi scéim Tithe na Gaeltachta agus tá fhios aca freisin go bhfuair a lán daoine brabach as an scéim sin d'aimhdheoin nach raibh an Ghaeilge acu. Níl mórán eolas agam faoin scéim béilí scoile. Fostaíodh a lán daoine freisin, daoine nach raibh Gaeilge acu, daoine a raibh Gaeilge acu ach a chaill í.

Nuair a thosnaíomar ar an obair seo bhí orainn eolas ar leith d'fháil — eolas i dtaobh limistéir na Gaeltachta agus na n-áiteanna ina raibh sí. Tá an t-eolas sin go soiléir ag an Aire anois. Tá mé ag iarraidh tagairt a dhéanamh do na tionscail agus na scéimeanna a cuireadh ar bun ar son muintir na Gaeltachta. Cuireadh Ordú ar leith amach le déannaí ach b'fhéidir go bhfuil ceartú ar na figiúirí a bhí san Ordú sin ó aimsir an mór-áireamh. Tá fhios againn ón Ordú cá bhfuil limistéirí na Gaeltachta; tá fhios againn go bhfuil áiteanna ina bhfuil an Ghaeilge mar ghnáth-theanga. Ach tá limistéirí eile comhgarach do limistéirí na Gaeltachta agus faoi na limistéirí seo deireann Alt 2 (2) den Acht Airí agus Rúnaithe (Leasú), 1956:—

“Féadfaidh an Rialtas ó am go ham le hórdú a chinneadh gur limistéirí Gaeltachta limistéirí sonraithe, is limistéirí ar Gaeiligeoirí mórchuid de na daoine iontu agus limistéirí ina n-aice sin ar dóigh leis an Rialtas gur cheart iad d'áireamh sa Ghaeltacht d'fhonn an Ghaeilge a chaomhaint agus a leathnú mar ghnáth-urlabhra.”

Tá a lán Gaeilgeoirí ins na limistéirí in aice na Gaeltachta. San [774] Ghaeltacht ceart, tá 18,411 líon tí a labhrann an Ghaeilge amháin nó Gaeilge agus Béarla. Níl sa limistéir sin ach 361 líon tí nach bhfuil acu ach Béarla amháin. Ins na ceantracha comhgarach don limistéir sin, tá 6,859 líon tí agus orthu sin tá Béarla amháin ag 1,775 líon tí. Idir 17,000 agus 18,000 líon tí atá san Ghaeltacht cheart.

Tá fhios ag chuile dhuine anois cá bhfuil an Ghaeltacht ceart. Is do na daoine atá ina gcónaí ansin atá an chreidiúint ag dul faoi go bhfuil Gaeltacht ann in aon chor. Is orthu siúd a bheidh an Bord nua seo ag freastal agus ní dóigh liom go bhfuil rud ar bith sa Bhille seo a chuirfidh in iúl don Bhord seo go bhfuil dualgas orthu an teanga a choimeád beo mar ghnáth urlabhra na ndaoine i limistéirí na Gaeltachta. De réir mar atá ráite ag an Aire, níl de leigheas ach an Bord do bhriseadh agus daoine eile do chur air. Ní dóigh liom gur ceart dlithe do leagadh síos mar sin. Ba mhaith liom ceist do chur ar an Aire. Cad é an díobháil a dhéanfadh sé dá gcuirfeadh sé an méid seo a leanas isteach:—

“Is é dualgas an Bhoird cabhrú le caomhaint agus leathnú na Gaeilge mar ghnáth-urlabhra sa Ghaeltacht; agus chuige sin deimhin a dhéanamh de gurb í an Ghaeilge an ghnáth-theanga ghnótha ins gach gné de ghnó gach tionscail tuaithe agus scéime somhaoineach fostaiochta a sholáthraíonn, a sheolana, o rialaíonn agus a bhainistíonn an Bord sa Ghaeltacht.”

Muna gcuirtear é sin isteach nach saghas ceap magaidh é an obair a bheidh ar siúl againn? Nuair a bhí Bille na hAireachta dhá phlé againn dúirt a lán daoine go mbeadh an scéal i bhfad níos fearr sa Ghaeltacht dá measfadh muintir na Gaeltachta go raibh muintir na tíre uile dáiríre i dtaobh labhairt na Gaeilge. Conas is féidir linn a rá go bhfuilimíd dáiríre ag cur boird den tsaghas seo ar bun chun cabhrú le staid gheilleagrach na Gaeltachta muna mbeadh dualgas orthu an Ghaeilge do chaomhaint?

Mícheál Ó Móráin:  Is oth liom nach féidir liom glacadh leis an leasú so. Ní bheadh sé inoibrithe. Do bheadh an bord ró-cheangailte.

[775]Risteárd Ua Maolchatha:  Ró-cheangailte i dtaobh na Gaeilge?

Mícheál Ó Móráin:  Tá deacrachtaí sa scéal. Tuigim go maith an cuspóir a bhí in aigne an Teachta nuair a chuir sé an leasú seo ar aghaidh. Is léir gur mian leis a chur in áirithe go mbeidh dualgas reachtúil ar an mBord féachaint chuige go n-úsáidfear an Ghaeilge mar ghnáth-theanga ghnótha i gcomhliónadh feidhmeanna agus dualgaisí an Bhoird. Is inmholta ar fad a bhfuil ar aigne ag an Teachta agus ní fhéadfainn cur ina choinne. Ba mhian linn araon go mór gurb í an Ghaeilge teanga an Bhoird ó bhun go barr, mar adéarfá, ach caithfidh mé a rá nach n-aontaím leis go bhfuil foráil den tsórt seo riachtanach nó go n-éireodh leis, dá nglactaí leis, cuspóir an Teachta a thabhairt chun críche. Tá scóip an-leathan ag an leasú mar deir sé, i bhfocla an leasuithe féin, gurb é a chuspóir “deimhin a dhéanamh de gurb í an Ghaeilge an gnáth-theanga ghnótha ins gach gné de ghnó gach tionscail tuaithe agus scéime somhaoiní fostaíochta” dá mbeidh baint ag an mBord leis.

Risteárd Ua Maolchatha:  Sa Ghaeltacht?

Mícheál Ó Móráin:  Sa Ghaeltacht agus taobh amuigh.

Risteárd Ua Maolchatha:  An rud atá á léamh ag an Aire sin é atá sa leasú.

Mícheál Ó Móráin:  Do réir mar atá faoi láthair, ní fhéadfaí glacadh leis an leasú gan neamh-áird a thabhairt ar an scéal mar atá sé. Ní féidir na tionscail tuaithe atá i gceist a choinneál ar siúl sa Ghaeltacht amháin. Ba chóir gur léir don Teachta nach féidir an gnó a stiúradh trí Ghaeilge amháin lasmuigh den Ghaeltacht, agus is taobh amuigh den Ghaeltacht a caitear an bun-ábhar a cheannach agus na hearraí críochnaithe a dhíol. Dúras cheana go dtuigim go maith an fonn atá ar an Teachta go bhféachfaí chuige go dtuigfidh an bord go soiléir na dualgaisí a bhéas air i dtaobh na Gaeilge.

Táim sásta gur féidir é sin a dhéanamh gan foráil reachtúil a bheith sa Bhille atá ós cómhair an Tí. Meabhróidh an Teach go bhforáltar mar [776] leanas san Acht Airí agus Rúnaithe (Leasú), 1956, faoinar bunaíodh Roinn na Gaeltachta. “Is é is feidhm do Roinn na Gaeltachta leas cultúrtha, sóisialach agus geilleagrach na Gaeltachta a chur chun cinn; cabhrú le caomhaint agus leathnú na Gaeilge mar ghnáth-urlabhra; agus, a mhéid is gá nó is cuí, dul i gcomhairle agus comhairle a ghlacadh le Ranna eíle Stáit i dtaobh seirbhísí a riaras na Ranna sin agus a bhaineas le leas cultúrtha, sóisialach nó geilleagrach na Gaeltachta nó a bhaineas leis an gcuspóir náisiúnta an Ghaeilge d'athbheochaint.”

Táimse sásta gur leor an fhoráil seo chun a chinntiú nach ndéanfar faillí sa Ghaeilge i ngnóthaí an Bhoird. Beidh an Bord faoi urlámhas díreach Aire na Gaeltachta agus, ar an ábhar sin, ní mór glacadh leis go mbainfidh na horduithe reachtúla céanna leis i leith na Gaeilge is a bhaineas leis an Roinn féin. Ba mhí-réasúnach agus ba sheafóideach freisin, b'fhéidir, go mbeadh a mhalairt de scéal ann agus is féidir liom a rá leis an Teach go bhfuil ar intinn agam a mheabhrú don Bhord nuair a ceapfar é, an fhreagracht a bheas orthu i leith na Gaeilge. Beidh an t-ordú a bhéarfas mé gach pioc chomh feidhmiúil leis an bhforáil is mian leis an Teachta a bheith sa Bhille mar tá ar intinn agam a chur in iúl don Bhord nach foláir leas na Gaeilge a chur san áireamh ina ngnóthaí uile.

Tá súil agam go sásóidh an méid sin an Teachta mar, ar na fátha a thugas, ní féidir glacadh leis an leasú. Tá cúpla duine ag obair anois faoin Roinn, Gearmánach, Sasanach agus daoine den tsaghas sin. Teicneoirí atá iontu. Ní bheidh an teanga acu agus is rud an-tábhachtach é go mbeadh ag an mbord daoine maithe le cáilíochtaí, go mór-mhór na teichneoirí.

Pádraig Mac Loingsigh:  Ní chuirfidh an leasú isteach ar Ghearmánach, ar Shasanach ná ar éinne eile. Sílim nach bhfuil aon rud in aghaidh an leasaithe ráite ag an Aire. Níl san leasú ach an Ghaeilge a chothabháil agus a chaomhaint. Bheadh sin mar dhualgas ar an mbord. Níl aon deacrachtaí ann. Seo pointe tábhachtach. [777] Nuair a bhí mise im Aire is cuimhin liom go bhfuair mé gearán géar ó scríbhneoir Ghaeilge a bhfuil clú mór air sa tír seo — an scríbhneoir is mó b'fhéidir. Usáideann an duine seo an leagan Gaeilge dá ainm i gcónaí agus i nGaeilge a scríobhann sé ach, mar sin féin, is minic a gheibheann sé freagra i mBéarla. Mar adúirt mé, fuaireas an gearán géar sin. D'aontaíos go raibh sé droch-mhúinte agus go raibh sé in aghaidh polasaí an Stáit go dtarlódh rud den tsaghas sin. Dá bhrí sin, d'ordaíos don Roinn litir do chumadh a chuirfinn ós cómhair an Rialtais chun deimhin a dhéanamh de nach dtarlódh a leithéid feasta. Tháinig an t-athrú Rialtais agus níl a fhios agam cad a thárla ó shin. B'fhéidir go gcuirfidh an tAire ceist ar an Roinn, ach is é seo an pointe is tabhachtaí ar fad.

Bhunaigh an Rialtas deireannach aireacht agus roinn fé leith chun an Gaeltacht a chaomhnadh agus, fé mar is ceart, rinneadh obair na Roinne i nGaeilge ó thús. Is cuid den Roinn sin Gaeltarra Éireann agus is ar mhaithe leis an Ghaeltacht agus leis an nGaeilge a bunaíodh é. Mar sin nuair is é polasaí an Stáit an Ghaeilge agus an Ghaeltacht a chaomhnadh caithfear deimhin a dhéanamh de nach ndéanfaidh an bord seo faillí sa Ghaeilge. Anois an t-am chuige sin.

Níor mhaith liom slabhra a chur ar an mbord ach caithfidh siad a thuigsint ó thús gur ar mhaithe leis an nGaeltacht agus an Ghaeilge atá siad ann. Níl aon tslí eile chun sin a dhéanamh ach glacadh leis an leasú seo. Focal deireannach, an é atá á rá ag an Aire gur éifeachtaí treoir don bhord ná coinníoll reachtúil san Acht.

Micheál Ó Móráin:  Bíonn an Ghaeilge mar gnáth-theanga i ngach gné do thionscail tuaithe, ach tá an bord ag glacadh cúram thionscal árd-teicniúla agus tá sé fíor riachtanach go mbeidh na teicneoirí a bheidh ar fostú acu oilte ar an obair. Dá gcuirtí coinníoll isteach fé eolas ar an nGaeilge mar atá molta ag an Teachta, is eagal liom go gcuirfeadh sé sin isteach ar an mbord ag iarraidh teicneoirí d'fháil a mbeadh an t-eolas agus an taithí riachtanach acu. Is mór an trua, ach is fíor é mar [778] sin féin, nach bhfuil mórán teicneoirí árd-oilte ar fáil a bhfuil an Ghaeilge, ar eolas acu. Fé láthar tá beirt teicneoirí ón iasacht ar fostú, sin Gearmánach agus Sasanach agus cé gur ionmholta ar fad intinn an Teachta, ní dóigh liom gur féidir srian a chur ar an mbord. Dá bhrí sin ní thig liom glacadh leis an leasú.

Risteárd Ua Maolchatha:  'Sé an rud a bhí uaim sa leasú ná go ndéanfaí deimhin de gurb í an Ghaeilge an gnáth-theanga sa Ghaeltacht agus dá mbeadh an tAire sásta an tarna cuid a ligint ar lár agus an méid seo leanas d'fhágaint ann, ghlacfainn leis sin:—

“Roimh fho-alt (2) fo-alt nua a chur isteach mar leanas:—

‘( ) Is é dualgas an Bhoird cabhrú le caomhaint agus leathnú na Gaeilge mar ghnáth-urlabhra sa Ghaeltacht;’”

Bheinn sásta stad ansin agus gan coinníoll do shaghas a bheadh ró chúng a chur isteach fé mar atá sa tarna cuid den leasú. 'Sé a theastaíonn uaim ná go dtuigfeadh muintir na Gaeltachta, an Bord, agus na hoibritheoirí go bhfuil cúram na Gaeilge orthu-san agus sin é aidhm an chéad cuid den leasú. Tá súil agam go nglae faidh sé leis sin agus le rún 13 agus 14.

Micheál Ó Móráin:  Nílim ag cur in aghaidh an chéad cuid den leasú. Bheinn sásta glacadh leis an méid seo:—

“( ) Is é dualgas an Bhoird cabhrú le caomhaint agus leathnú na Gaeilge mar ghnáth-urlabhra sa Ghaeltacht;”

Risteárd Ua Maolchatha:  Tá go maith.

Mr. Corish:  One tends to get a little more suspicious not so much about this Bill but about the entire Gaeltacht. It seems very peculiar, seeing that this Bill was introduced to encourage the use of the Irish language in the Gaeltacht and to try to further expand the Gaeltacht, that it should be necessary in the Committee Stage for a member of the Opposition, Deputy [779] Mulcahy, to insert, by amendment, what to my mind should be the most important part of the Bill. The Bill as originally introduced does not mention a word, as far as I can gather, about the preservation of the Irish language. To provide economic relief for those people who happen to be living in a part of the country that we call the Gaeltacht is laudable in itself because those people are as deserving of assistance from the State as the people on the southern coast.

I think it is a good gesture on the part of the Minister, even though he may have been amiss in the initial stages in drafting the Bill, to be big enough to accept this amendment put down by Deputy Mulcahy. The usual pattern in this House is that when an amendment is proposed by anyone not on the Government side of the House, it can be taken for granted it will not be accepted, however good it may be. I hope the new Minister for the Gaeltacht will continue the attitude he has now adopted on the Committee and Report Stages of any measure he may be in charge of. While Fianna Fáil may be in the majority for the time being, good ideas can come from this side of the House and the real purpose of a Committee Stage is to try to make a Bill a better Bill.

I think the inclusion of the first part of this amendment would indeed be a gesture, or an indication, that the Minister intends not alone to provide economic relief for the Gaeltacht, but that, in providing that type of relief — for instance, the formation of industries and that sort of thing — he is doing so in order to preserve and revive the Irish language. Therefore, I should like to support it and again congratulate the Minister on doing what is not done usually in this House — accepting an amendment from the other side of the House.

Mr. Moran:  May I say to the Deputy that he may be under a misapprehension? My view in connection with this matter, which I have argued with Deputy Mulcahy, was that under the Ministers and Secretaries Act, under which this Department was set up, [780] there was an overriding duty on the Department to preserve and expand the Irish language and for that reason I thought there was no need to have a specific power and direction to the board under this Bill. I myself was advised by the Attorney-General that I have the power under this Bill to direct the board. However, Deputy Mulcahy appears to be of the view that it would be better to have that matter specifically written into the Bill, although I myself think it is inherent in the Bill. To meet the Deputy's viewpoint, I will accept the amendment, but I consider I have the overriding power to direct the board on this matter.

Gearóid Mac Pharthaláin:  Cad is brí le leathnú na Gaeilge ins an Gaeltacht?

Risteárd Ua Maolchatha:  Nuair a bhíos ag labhairt cheana, chuireas síos na figiúirí i dtaobh an chuid is Gaelí den Ghaeltacht. Conus tá an scéal ann? Tá 7,535 líonta tí ann agus Gaeilge amháin mar gnáth-theanga sa tig acu. Tá 2,608 go mbíonn Gaeilge agus Béarla in úsáid acu, ach gur treise ar an nGaeilge ná ar an mBéarla, tá 1,273 líonta tí ann go mbíonn an Ghaeilge agus an Béarla acu, ach gur treise ar an mBearla ná ar an nGaeilge, agus tá 361 líonta tí ann nach bhfuil ach an Béarla dá labhairt acu. Dá dtagadh athrú ann i dtreo go mbeadh an Ghaeilge in úsáid acu go léir, fé mar atá sna 7,000 seo adeirtear nach bhfuil ach Gaeilge amháin ar siúl mar theangan acu, nárbh shin láithreach leathnú na Gaeilge sa Ghaeltacht?

Gearóid Mac Pharthaláin:  Níl ann ach cur i gcéill. Tá an Ghaeilg beo sa Ghaeltacht. Ní féidir í leathnú san Gaeltacht. Tá Béarla ag beagnach chuile duine anois agus tá sé sin amhlaidh de bharr beartas oideachais sa tír seo.

Is cuma dá mhéid tionscail dá gcuirtí ar bup sa Ghaeltacht ní shábháilfidh sé sin an Ghaeilge mura leathnófar í ar fuid na tíre. Is fánach bheith ag ceapadh go mairfidh an Ghaeilge sa Ghaeltacht amháin. Is amaideach an rud é d'aon Teachta a bheith ag iarraidh, le focla beaga a chur isteach mar leasú in Acht [781] Pharlaiminte anseo, rud a dhéanamh nach féidir a dhéanamh mura bhfuil an sprid ann agus mura bhfuil an sprid sin san mBord a cuirfí ar bun fén mBille seo. Is cuma cén sort forála nó leasú a chuirfear ar an mBille, tá sé fánach bheith ag iarraidh dualgas a chur ar an mBord seo le forálacha muna bhfuil sprid ionnta féin é sin a dhéanamh. Má táimid chun Bord fé leith a chur ar bun le tionscail a bhunú sa Ghaeltacht, nach luigheann sé le réasún gur ar mhaithe leis an nGaeilge atá sé á dhéanamh?

Dúirt an Teachta Ua Maolchatha nach raibh fhios againn cá raibh an Ghaeltacht. Níl sé sin fíor. Tá a fhios agam, mar dhuine amháin, cá raibh sí san iarthar, agus is féidir liom a rá leis an Teachta Ua Maolchatha go bhfuil tórainn na Gaeltachta i gConamara san áit a raibh sé dhá scór bliain ó shoin. Bhí fhios againn cá raibh an Ghaeltacht nuair a chuir an Teachta Ua Maolchatha Coimisiún na Gaeltachta ar bun. Molaim é dá bharr sin. Uaidh sin amach bhí Gaeltacht oifigiúil againn, ach ní raibh Gaeltacht reachtúil againn go dtí gur ritheadh Acht Aireacht na Gaeltachta.

Molaim an tAire de bharr glacadh le n-a bhfuil molta ag an Teachta. Is cuma ann nó as é. Maidir leis an gcuid eile den leasú sin, theaspeán an Teachta Ua Maolchatha ciall nuair tharraing sé an chuid eile den leasú siar. Dá mbeadh siopadóir ag ceannach stuif ón mBórd, chaithfeadh an Bórd scríobh chuige i nGaelige is cuma pé acu a mbeadh Gaeilge ag an siopadóir sin nó nach mbeadh. Bheadh dualgas reachtúil ar an mBórd scríobh i nGaeilge chuig siopadóir nach mbeadh Gaeilge aige, agus an siopadóir sin ag iarraidh stuif an Bhóird a cheannach. Nach mbeadh sé sin thar a bheith amaideach ar fad? Tá súil agam go bhfuil sé sin feicthe ag an Aire. An dochar a bheadh sa leasú seo, tá sé bainte as anois.

An Ceann Comhairle:  An é seo an leasú anois:—

“Roimh fho-alt (2), fo-alt nua a chur isteach mar leanas:—

‘( ) Is é dualgas an Bhoird cabhrú le caomhaint agus leathnú na [782] Gaeilge mar ghnáth-urlabhra sa Ghaeltacht; ’”

Agus an méid eile a scrios amach?

D'aontaiodh Leasú 4, mar a hathraíodh é.

English version of Bill.

General Mulcahy:  I move amendment No. 4:—

Before sub-section (2), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

“( ) It shall be the duty of the board to encourage the preservation and extension of the use of Irish as a vernacular language in the Gaeltacht; and for that purpose to ensure that Irish will be the normal business language in every phase of the business of every rural industry and every productive scheme of employment which the board provides, carries on, controls and manages in the Gaeltacht.”

Amendment altered to read:—

Before sub-section (2), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

“( ) It shall be the duty of the board to encourage the preservation and extension of the use of Irish as a vernacular language in the Gaeltacht.”

Amendment, as altered, agreed to.

Mícheál Ó Móráin:  Tairgim leasú 5:

I bhfo-alt (3), mír (c), leathanach 7, líne 17, roimh an bhfocal “scor” na focail “le toiliú an Aire”, a chur isteach.

Chuir an Teachta Ó Blathmhaic in iúl, le linn an Dara Léimh, go raibh imní air mar gheall ar na cumhachta neamhshrianta a bhí á dtabhairt don Bhord faoin Alt seo. Mhol sé nach gceadófaí don Bhord tionscal ar bith a dhúpadh síos gan toiliú an Aire. Tar éis dom an cheist a bhreithniú, táim tagaithe ar an tuairim go bhfeabhasófaí an Bille le foráil den tsaghas sin a chur ann. Mar sin, tá leasú le moladh agam chuige sin. Sa tslí seo, beidh an Bord faoi cheannas an Aire agus ceapaim go mba leor sin. Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil gá ar bith leis na forála a mholas an Teachta Mac [783] Loingsigh san leasú atá curtha síos aige.

Mr. Lindsay:  The Minister has referred to the amendment which I have put down in relation to this particular paragraph of the sub-section. I think he understood my anxiety when I put it down and I think he has answered that anxiety by agreeing to the words: “with the consent of the Minister.” Historically, these industries are scattered. Strictly commercial enterprise might not have scattered them so much. The cessation of any one of these would have the result of creating considerable economic chaos in any little village such as the Minister knows and I know in this area.

The reason I put down this amendment was so that the House would be given notice as to the likelihood of such a happening and the reasons for it. I take it that—on my withdrawal of this amendment now and being content with the one which he has and which Deputy Blowick has put in, “with the consent of the Minister”— the Minister will undertake that due notice will be given of any such happening. I do not want to tie the Minister down.

Mr. Moran:  On consideration, I think it will be agreed that the amendment I have moved will meet both the amendment of Deputy Lindsay and that of Deputy Blowick under this heading. Once it is clear that none of these existing industries can be closed down in an area without the consent of the Minister, I think it will be considered quite sufficient protection. That should allay the fears which Deputies may have in mind in connection with the powers of the new board.

Risteárd Ua Maolchatha:  Isé an tAire a bheidh freagarthach?

Micheál Ó Móráin:  Isé an tAire a bheidh freagarthach.

D'aontaíodh an leasú.

English version of Bill.

Mr. Moran:  I move amendment No. 5:—

In sub-section (3), paragraph (c), [784] page 6, line 17, before “to” to insert “with the consent of the Minister.”

Amendment agreed to.

Níor tairgeadh leasú 6.

English version of Bill.

Amendment No. 6 not moved.

Cuireadh agus d'aontaíodh an Cheist: “Go bhfanfaidh Alt 4, mar a leasuíodh é, in a chuid den Bhille.”

English version of Bill.

Question—“That Section 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill”—put and agreed to.

ALT 5.

Pádraig Mac Loingsigh:  Tairgim leasú 7:—

I bhfo-alt (2), leathanach 7, line 34, na focail “an tAire” a scrios agus na focail “an Rialtas” a chur ina n-ionad.

This amendment is a simple one. It is to substitute in sub-section (2) for the word “Minister” the word “Government”. This amendment, like subsequent amendments seeking to have the word “Government” used instead of the word “Minister”, does not represent a denigration of the Minister himself. It is an effort to make this the responsibility of the Government and not of the Minister alone. In that, I am acting in accordance with the spirit of the provisions of two very well-known statutes — the Electricity Supply Board Act, No. 27 of 1927, and the Turf Development Act of 1946, No. 10 of 1946. That is the scheme in those two Acts and I do not think anybody has any reason to quarrel with it.

It is for that reason and for that reason alone, to have a certain amount of conformity in statutory provisions, that I desire to put in the word “Government” instead of “Minister”. I might put it this way, that it is in ease of the Minister, that whatever is happening, whoever is appointed and whoever is removed — I will come to that later — it should be Government [785] responsibility and not ministerial responsibility alone.

Mícheál Ó Móráin:  Ní aontaím leis an leasú seo agus ní féidir dom glacadh leis. Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil sé riachtanach no inmhianuithe, fiú amháin a thabhairt ar an Rialtas na ceapacháin seo a dhéanamh. Ins na Billí is deireannaí a ritheadh agus ar bunaíodh Boird fúthu, fágadh dualgas ceapacháin na gcomhaltaí ag na hAirí. Níl aon dabht agam ach go mbeidh an socrú céanna sásúil sa chás seo agus dá bhrí sin cuirim i gcoinne an leasuithe.

This power has already been given in this House in other legislation, particularly in dealing with An Bord lascaigh Mhara and the more recent boards which were set up under legislation passing through this House. It is true that the power suggested by Deputy Lindsay was vested in the Government in earlier days, but perhaps lessons were learned from that time. At all events, the Deputy well knows from his experience in Government, that no Government would act in a matter of this kind without having the advice of the particular Minister concerned. As I say, it has been the most recent trend of legislation in this House to leave these powers to the Minister concerned. I propose to continue that trend and retain these powers as Minister for the Gaeltacht.

Mr. Lindsay:  Really it is a selection as between the old established practice and the pew trend; and if the Minister thinks the new trend is the desirable one, I am willing to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Moran:  If I may say so, I think the Deputy was of the same opinion when he was Minister for the Gaeltacht.

Mr. Corish:  Ministers have to go to the Government for too many things, anyhow.

Tarraingíodh siar leasú 7, faoi chead.

English version of Bill.

Mr. Lindsay:  I move amendment No. 7:—

[786] In sub-section (2), page 6, line 32, to delete “Minister” and substitute “Government”.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:  Tá leasú Uimh. 7 ar siúl le leasuithe Uimha. 8, 9 agus 10.

Micheál Ó Móráin:  Tá siad ar aon dóigh.

Mr. Lindsay:  I shall not move amendment No. 8. Has the Minister included in his reply the new section which I proposed to put in as an amendment to Section 8? Will the Minister not accept that one, on the removal of the members of the board?

Risteárd Ua Maolchatha:  Nílimíd ach ar Alt 5 fós.

Mr. Moran:  It would be inconsistent with the principle.

Mr. Lindsay:  In view of what the Minister has said, I shall not move amendment No. 8.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:  Níl leasú 8 dá thairgeadh—agus leasuithe 9 agus 10.

Risteárd Ua Maolchatha:  Fan leat. Níl Alt 6 curtha fós.

Níor tairgeadh leasú 8.

English version of Bill.

Amendment No. 8 not moved.

Cuireadh agus d'aontaoidh an cheist: “Go bhfanfaidh Alt 5 in a chuid den Bhille.”

English version of Bill.

Question —“That Section 5 stand part of the Bill”— put and agreed to.

D'aontaiodh Alt 6 agus Alt 7.

English version of Bill.

Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.

ALT 8.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:  Tá leasú 9 ag dul leis na leasuithe eile a tarraingaíodh siar.

[787]Pádraig Mac Loingsigh:  Níl sé sin riachtanach.

Risteárd Ua Maolchatha:  Nílimíd tagaithe go dtí leasú 9 ach anois.

Pádraig Mac Loingsigh:  Tairgim leasú Uimh. 9:—

Roimh Alt 8 alt nua mar leanas a chur isteach:—

(1) Más dóigh leis an Rialtas tráth ar bith gur gá gach duine nó aon duine de chomhaltaí an Bhoird a chur as oifig ar mhaithe le comhlíonadh éifeachtúil eacnamúil feidhmeanna an Bhoird faoin Acht seo agus ar mhaithe le leas an phobail féadfaidh an Rialtas gach duine nó pé méid daoine de chomhaltaí an Bhoird is riachtanach leis an Rialtas ar mhaithe leis na nithe adúradh a chur as oifig.

(2) Féadfaidh an Rialtas, tráth ar bith, aon chomhalta den Bhord a chur as oifig má éiríonn dó bheith éagumasach de dheasca easláinte ar a dhualgais mar chomhalta den tsórt sin a chomhlíonadh go héifeachtúil nó má bhí sé gan fáth nó gan fáthanna lena mbeidh an Rialtas sásta as láthair ó gach cruinniú den Bhord i gcaitheamh tréimhse sé mhí.

(3) Má dhéanann agus aon uair a dhéanfas an Rialtas aon chomhalta den Bhord chur as oifig faoin alt seo leagfaidh an Rialtas faoi bhráid gach Tí den Oireachtas ráiteas i scríbhinn á insint gur cuireadh an comhalta sin as oifig agus ag lua na bhfáthanna gur cuireadh as oifig amhlaidh é.

The acceptance of this amendment would involve the deletion of Section 8 in its entirety. Section 8 at the moment reads: “The Minister may at any time remove a member of the board from office.” I regard that provision as too sweeping in character and one which gives too much power to the Minister, on the one hand, and no redress to the person removed on the other hand. With the exception of a few words in sub-section (1), my amendment is taken directly from the Turf Development Act, 1946.

Lest anybody may be under any misunderstanding [788] as to what my amendment proposes to do, I think I can effectively paraphrase it; it places responsibility for the removal of members of the board on the Government and it gives the Government power to remove members: “The Government may at any time remove from office any member of the board who has become incapable, through ill-health, of performing efficiently his duties as such member or who has without a reason or reasons acceptable to the Government being absent from all meetings of the board during a period of six months.”

I regard the third sub-section of my proposed amendment as the most important:—

“If and whenever the Government removes from office under this section any member of the board the Government shall lay before each House of the Oireachtas a statement in writing of the fact of the removal from office of such member and the reasons for such removal.”

There has been a good deal of undesirable talk throughout the country from time to time because people have been either not reappointed to office or removed from office without any reason being assigned. I think my amendment would remedy that undesirable state of affairs. I do not know what the Minister's view is on this. Perhaps it is something that could be dealt with again on the Report Stage if he is willing to go any bit of the way with me, particularly in relation to giving reasons for the removal of members of the board.

I am quite satisfied to give the Minister the power to remove members for stated incapacity, misbehaviour or misconduct but I would urge upon the Minister the necessity, in the public interest and for a proper adjustment of the public mind towards public affairs, that the reasons should at all times be given for such removal. I do not know what the Minister's attitude is. If he objects to the amendment I wonder would he consider either he or I putting down an amendment on the Report Stage, an amendment which would effectively cover my objections [789] to the sweeping character of the section as it now stands.

Micheál Ó Moráin:  Is léir go bhfuil an leasú seo bunuithe ar fhorálacha na hAchtana a bhaineas le “cur as oifig” comhaltaí den mBord Soláthair Leictreachais agus de Bhord na Móna. Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil aon ghá leis na forálacha seo i gcás an bhoird atá i gceist againn sa Bhille seo. Cé go mbeidh lán-chumhacht ag an Aire faoin Alt mar atá sé beidh sé freagrach as gach rud a dhéanann sé faoi agus féadfaidh Teachta ar bith é a cheistiú ina thaoibh sa Teach seo. Ceapaim nach ndéanfadh an leasú aon fheabhsúchán ar an mBille agus mar sin ní féidir liom glacadh leis.

The Deputy is well aware that if any member is put off the board to be established under this Bill, the ordinary rights of Deputies are still there to question it or to raise it by question or by motion in this House. I have had to oppose the principle of the other amendment by the Deputy of changing certain duties under this Bill from the Minister to the Government. I must also resist this change. I think it would be inconsistent. I think that where we are specifying duties for the Minister under one section, we should continue to follow that procedure and put the duty on the Minister under this section also.

From a practical point of view, it is made clear to me, from my short experience in Government, that in any event it would be the Minister for the Gaeltacht who would have the duty to inform the Government about the possible failings of some member of the board so that the Government may remove him. I think that is largely a waste of time and that the Minister should have this power. It is the main protection, perhaps, that this House might have, that the Minister is answerable for matters of this kind.

This, I would point out to the House, is no new or revolutionary provision. Exactly the same provision was made under Section 7 of the Voluntary Health Insurance Act, 1957. The Sea Fisheries Act, First Schedule, subparagraph (vii) is almost identical, as is also paragraph 4 (1) of the Schedule to the Tourist Traffic Act, 1952, with [790] reference to the members of Fógra Fáilte.

I think Deputy Lindsay is very naive when he suggests that the reasons for the removal should be set out by somebody or other. There may be very good reasons for removal that one could visualise and it might not be very wise, certainly unless there were adequate statutory protection, to set them out. I am sure Deputy Lindsay is very familiar with the statement we have heard over and over again in connection with some justices or judges, that their decision was perfectly good but that their reasoning was terrible and that it would be far preferable if they did not set out the reasons for the decision. The same thing may well apply in matters of this kind. At least one could visualise instances arising where it would be, to say the least of it, more politic not to give any reason.

As I say, there is always the protection that every citizen has through his Deputy for airing something that he thinks is wrong in this House, and I am quite sure that if something should occur from the point of view of removing some member unjustly, it would be very quickly debated in this House. As far as I am concerned and, I am sure, as far as any Minister is concerned, a Minister would not take advantage of this power to remove a member from a board of this kind without very good reason and he would need to have the gravest reasons before exercising that power.

I would suggest to the Deputy that he should withdraw this amendment. I think this power is very necessary. It comes back to my mind that, on Second Reading, some people were complaining that I had no sooner gone into the Department of the Gaeltacht than I was getting rid of all my responsibility and handing the responsibility over to a board and that that board would not be responsible to this House. Under this section, I will be responsible to this House for any action I may take, and from that point of view I suggest to the Deputy that he should withdraw his amendment and that any Minister for the Gaeltacht will be answerable to this House for anything he may do wrong in the exercise of his powers under this section.

[791]Mr. Corish:  In any case, the complaints will be, not about the people you will dismiss, but about the people whom you will appoint.

Tarraingíodh siar an leasú, faoi chead.

English version of Bill.

Mr. Lindsay:  I move amendment No. 9:—

Before Section 8, to insert a new section as follows:—

8.— (1) If at any time it appears to the Government that the removal from office of all or any of the members of the board is necessary in the interests of the effective and economical performance of the functions of the board under this Act and in the public interest the Government may remove from office all or so many members of the board as the Government considers necessary in the interests aforesaid.

(2) The Government may at any time remove from office any member of the board who has become incapable through ill-health of performing efficiently his duties as such member or who has without a reason or reasons acceptable to the Government been absent from all meetings of the board during a period of six months.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Cuireadh agus d'aontaíodh an cheist:—“Go bhfanfaidh Alt 8 in a chuid den Bhille.”

English version of Bill.

Question —“That Section 8 stand part of the Bill”— put and agreed to.

ALT 9.

Pádraig Mac Loingsigh:  Tairgim leasú 10:—

I bhfo-alt (1), leathanach 9, líne 12, na focail “an tAire” a scrios agus na focail “an Rialtas” a chur ina n-ionad.

Mr. Moran:  I cannot accept the amendment.

[792] Tarraingíodh siar an leasú, faoi chead.

English version of Bill.

Mr. Lindsay:  I move amendment No. 10:—

In sub-section (1), page 6, line 13, to delete “Minister” and substitute “Government”.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Pádraig Mac Loingsigh:  Tairgim leasú 11:—

I bhfo-alt (2), leathanach 9, líne 15, an méid seo a leanas a chur leis an bhfo-alt:—

“faoi réir forála ailt 8 den Acht seo.”

This is a very simple amendment and I do not think there will be any quarrel with it. I think it is a matter of interpretation. The Minister, in Section 8, has the power at any time to remove a member of the board from office. Section 9, sub-section (1), provides that a casual vacancy occurring among the members of the board shall be filled by an appointment by the Minister. Sub-section (2) of Section 9 says that a person appointed under this section shall hold office for the remainder of his predecessor's term. In my view, the Minister is precluded in such a case for the remainder of a predecessor's term from using the powers of Section 8 to dismiss him. Therefore, I am proposing the simple amendment that, subject to the provision of Section 8, a person appointed under this section shall hold office for the remainder of his predecessor's term. What I want to do is to give the Minister the power of dismissal of somebody who has been appointed at a later stage. It is only a question of interpretation.

Mr. Moran:  I must say that I do not agree with Deputy Lindsay's interpretation. It is quite clear that the Minister may at any time remove a member from the board, no matter how he came into office or when, whether he was there by way of filling up the term of his predecessor or not. I shall look into the matter again, but I disagree with the Deputy's interpretation.

[793]Mr. Lindsay:  Think about it.

Risteárd Ua Maolchatha:  Tá an tAire chun machtnamh a dhéanamh air.

Tarraingíodh siar an leasú, faoi chead.

English version of Bill.

Mr. Lindsay:  I move amendment No. 11:—

In sub-section (2), page 8, line 15, to add to the sub-section:—

“subject to the provisions of Section 8 of this Act.”

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Cuireadh agus d'aontaíodh an cheist:

“Go bhfanfaidh Alt 9 in a chuid den Bhille.”

English version of Bill.

Question —“That Section 9 stand part of the Bill,”— put and agreed to.

ALT 10.

Tairgeadh an cheist: “Go bhfanfaidh Alt 10 ina chuid den Bhille.”

Risteárd Ua Maolchatha:  Dá mba mhaith leis an Aire duine a raibh ghnáth-chónaí air i mBéal Feirste do chur ar an mBord an bhféadfadh sé é a dhéanamh? Do réir mar atá fo-alt (2) níor mhór do dhuine bheith ina ghnáth-chónaí sa Stát.

Micheál Ó Móráin:  Níor mhór. Tá mé sásta leis an bhfo-alt mar atá sé. Tá go leor daoine sa tír seo.

Mr. Corish:  Is deputy Mulcahy asking what does “ordinarily resident” mean?

Risteárd Ua Maolchatha:  Nach féidir leis an duine bheith ina ghnáthchónaí i mBéal Feirste?

Mr. Corish:  Did we hear aright on the question Deputy Mulcahy asked? Does it mean that a person resident outside the Republic of Ireland——

Mr. Bartley:  Tell us what is the Republic of Ireland?

Mr. Corish:  The Deputy is in the Government; let him tell us.

[794]Mr. Lindsay:  We have not a dictionary handy.

Mr. Bartley:  Wait a minute——

Mr. Corish:  Never mind that. What is “ordinarily resident”——

Mr. Bartley:  I think it is most objectionable to be continuously referring to the Twenty-Six Counties when you have——

Mr. Corish:  It is twice as objectionable when you are running away from it.

Mr. Bartley:  What does Deputy Corish mean when he uses the words “Republic of Ireland”? I certainly would prefer them to mean the whole thirty-two counties.

Mr. Corish:  So would I, but the fact is that the Republic of Ireland now means the Twenty-Six Counties——

Mr. Bartley:  Why does it? Does not everybody using the term in that sense, contribute to this idea?

Mr. Corish:  If a man is resident in Belfast is he qualified for this board?

Mr. Bartley:  I know there is a good basis for the use of it in the 1948 Act——

Mr. Corish:  We are only asking the Minister a simple question.

Mr. Moran:  And the Minister will try to give a very simple answer.

Mr. Corish:  And he is not as impudent about it as Deputy Bartley.

Mr. Moran:  Without going into this matter the State, as I remember it, as defined in the Constitution, is the thirty-two counties of Ireland, its islands and territorial waters.

Mr. Corish:  Then the man in Belfast would be eligible.

Risteárd Ua Maolchatha:  Níor thuigeas an chéad fhreagra a thug an tAire.

Micheál Ó Móráin:  Do thugas an t-eolas díreach. Ní maith liom dul lasmuigh de sin.

[795] Cuireadh agus d'aontaíodh an cheist.

English version of Bill.

Question: “That Section 10 stand part of the Bill”—put and agreed to.

D'aontaíodh Altanna 11 go 14 go huile.

English version of Bill.

Sections 11 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.

ALT 15.

Risteárd Ua Maolchatha:  Tairgim Leasú 12:—

Roimh fho-alt (2), fo-alt nua a chur isteach mar leanas:—

Beidh sé ina choinníoll ar gach duine a ceapfar ina oifigeach nó ina sheirbhíseach don Bhord é bheith cáilithe agus toilteanach an Ghaeilge a úsáid mar ghnáth-theanga ins gach gné d'obair an Bhoird.

Deireann Alt 15 go sealbhóidh oifigeach nó seirbhíseach don Bhord a oifig nó a fhostaíocht ar pé téarmaí agus coinníollacha a chinnfeas an Bord ó am to ham.

Toisc go bhfuil an dualgas sin ar an mBord maidir leis an dteanga molaim go gcuirfear isteach an fo-alt nua.

Tá fhios ag an Aire go bhfuil morán den obair sin ag dul ar aghaidh le fada an lá i dtreo is go mbeadh eolas inniúil ag na daoine atá ag freastal ar muintir na Gaeltachta san Roinn Talmhaíochta, san Roinn Sláinte agus san Roinn Rialtais Áitiúil. Chuir i gcás, foilsíodh lonstraim Reachtúil i Mí Feabhra, 1957, ag na Airí Rialtais Áitiúil, Sláinte agus Leasa Soisialaigh a rá:—

“Forálann Rialacháin na nOifigeach Áitiúla (An Ghaeilge) 1944, arna leasú le Rialacháin na nOifigeach Áitiúla (An Ghaeilge), 1956, i gcás duine ar bith a ceapfar chun oifige lena mbaineapn na Rialacháin sin, agus dualgais no hoifige a bheith le déanamh in aon chuid nó maidir le haon chuid den Ghaeltacht, agus nach mbeidh eolas inniúil ar an nGaeilge aige tráth a cheaptha, go scoirfidh sé de sheilbh na hoifige sin i gceann trí bliana ó dháta a cheaptha nó ar an 31ú d'Eanair, [796] 1957 (pé acu is déanaí), mura gcruthóidh sé roimhe sin chnn sástachta an Aire iomchuí i gcás na hoifige sin go bhfuil an t-eolas sin. aige ar an nGaeilge.

Is é feidhm do na rialacháin seo an 31ú lá d'Eanair, 1958, a chur in ionad an 31ú lá d'Eanair, 1957, sna Rialacháin sin.”

Tá an rialachán sin ann maidir le Stát Seirbhísigh agus dá bhrí sin is dóigh liom go bhfuil sé riachtanach i gcás na daoine a cheapfar ag an mbord go mbeadh eolas inniúil san acu ar an dteanga.

Gearóid Mac Pharthaláin:  Ba mhaith liom tuille eolais a fháil fá rud amháin. Chuir i gcás go bhfuil rud éigin le díol ag an mbord, rud éigin a deintear ins na tionscail a cuirfear ar bun. Chuir i gcás go scríobhann siopadóir ná fuil aon Ghaeilge aige chuig an mbord ag iarraidh na n-earraí sín agus go scríobhann sé i mBéarla. Má cuirtear an leasú seo ins an mBille, an mbeidh cead ag an bord nó ag a seirbhísigh scríobh thar nais don siopadóir as Béarla? Is é mo thuairim ná beadh an cead sin aige. Cén bhrí atá leis an dá fhocal “gach gné”?

Risteárd Ua Maolchatha:  “Gach gné”? Féach na focail thábhachtacha atá anso, iad a bheith cáilíthe agus toilteanach — na hoifigigh agus na seirbhísigh a bheadh san mbord atá i gceist. Níl sa leasú ach ceangail a chur orthu san atá cáilithe agus toilteanach an obair a dhéanamh.

Gearóid Mac Pharthaláin:  Tá go maith. Tá sin mínithe ag an Teachta anois ach tá ceist eile agam air. Cad a thuitfidh amach i gcás ceardaithe fé leith bheith ag teastáil, “teicneoirí” mar a tugtar orthu? Feicim anois go leor focal nua ag dul thart. Ceann acu is ea “teicneoiri” agus níl a fhios agam cé acu “technologist” no “technician” atá i gceist. Abair go dteastaíonn ón mbord duine den tsaghas seo agus nach bhfuil ar a gcumas duine a bheas cáilithe sa Ghaeilge d'fháil, an mbeidh cead ag an mbord, faoin leasú seo, an duine sin a fhostú nó fanúint go dtí go mbeadh duine le fáil acu? [797] Táim ar aon fhocal leis an Teachta maidir leis an gcuspóir atá ar intinn aige ach níor mhaith liom go mbeadh amadántacht ann de bhárr na deacrachta atá idir an Aire agus an Teachta.

Risteárd Ua Maolchatha:  Ba chóir go mbeadh ar oifigigh agus seirbhísigh an Bhoird — íad súd atá cáilithe agus toilteanach—gach gné den obair a dhéanamh tré Ghaeilge. D'fheadfainn leasú a cheapadh chuige sin.

Micheál Ó Móráin:  Bhéinn sásta. Tá na rudaí ginerálta céanna le rá faoin leasú seo a bhí le rá faoin leasú a mhol an Teachta céanna i dtaobh Ailt 4, agus ní dóigh liom gur gá dhom iad d'athrá ach amháin a dheimhniú go bhfuilim sásta gur feidir feidhmeanna Roinn na Gaeltachta, mar atáid leagtha sios san Acht a bhunaigh an Roinn, a shíneadh mar oblagáid ar an mBord nua.

Ba mhaith liom a rá arís go dtuigim mian an Teachta go gcoinneofaí an Ghaeilge chun tosaigh i ngnóthaí uile an bhoird. Ach caithfimid áird a thabhairt ar an scéal mar atá sé agus sinn ag féachaint ar an bhforáil seo den Bhille. Glacfaidh an bord cúram tionscal árd-teicniúla orthu féin agus beidh orthu iad d'fhorbairt. Tá an leasú róleathan agus ba chóir go mbeadh an Teachta sásta.

Risteárd Ua Maolchatha:  Deanfaidh mé machnamh air. B'fhéidir go mbeidh leasú eile ann nuair a bhéas an Bille faoi dhíospóireacht arís.

Tarraingíodh siar an leasú, faoi chead.

English version of Bill

General Mulcahy:  I move amendment No. 12:—

Before sub-section (2), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

( ) It shall be a condition of appointment for every person appointed as an officer or servant of the board that he shall be qualified and willing to use the Irish language as a vernacular language in every phase of the work of the board.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Cuireadh agus d'aontaíodh an [798] cheist: “Go bhfanfaidh Alt 15 in a chuid den Bhille.”

English version of Bill.

Question—“That Section 15 stand part of the Bill”— put and agreed to.

D'aontaíodh Altanna 16 agus 17.

English version of Bill.

Sections 16 and 17 agreed to.

ALT 18.

Tairgeadh an cheist: “Go bhfanfaidh Alt 18 ina chuid den Bhille.”

Micheál Ó Móráin:  Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal do rá fé dhream fé leith d'oibritheoirí i nGaeltarra Éireann. Nobody, it would appear, thought of dealing with one small section of workers who have been employed for many years under Gaeltarra Éireann. I am referring to their manageresses who in many respects pioneered some of these industries. They were largely responsible not alone for learning but bringing to a success the knitting industry and embroidery industry in parts of the Gaeltacht.

I find there was no provision made for them when they retired by way of pension, gratuity or otherwise. Many of them had given their whole lives to this work. In many instances, they were dedicated people who went to the most isolated parts of the Gaeltacht in order to teach the people there knitting, embroidery and the other handicrafts with which they have been so successful.

Deputies will have noted that Section 18 of this Bill requires the setting up of a pension scheme by the board. It is the intention to press the board to institute this scheme at the earlies possible date. It is in mind that the scheme should be financed partly by contributions by the board and partly by contributions by its employees.

The board will be asked to include manageresses in the classes to be admitted to pensionability under the scheme. Were it not for the setting up of the board a proportion of the total number of manageresses would [799] have been given an opportunity of securing established status in the Civil Service. Those who secured establishment would have been allowed to reckon half their previous unestablished service for pension, in accordance with the usual practice.

It would be inequitable that the proportion who might have secured establishment should be penalised by reason of the transfer of the service, particularly when a number of them had rendered long and faithful service. To resolve this difficulty it has been decided that provision be made in the board's scheme which will enable the board to reckon for pension purposes— in the case of any manageress found eligible for the board's scheme in respect of age, health and service — half the unestablished service rendered in the Civil Service, by any manageress appointed to the board's service who at the date of her transfer had rendered not less than ten years' continuous service in the Civil Service. When these officers come to retire from the service of the board it would be unreasonable to impose on the board the charge for this element of pensionable service. To relieve the board it is the intention to pay from the Exchequer an amount which would reimburse the board for accepting this liability in their pension charges. The amount to be reimbursed would be included in the Exchequer grant provided for in Section 25.

It is the intention to make provision for these manageresses under the pension scheme to be provided for under this section.

Mr. Lindsay:  Does this mean all manageresses at present employed in the Gaeltarra Éireann section?

Mr. Moran:  It will mean all of them, as I have said, who comply with the usual qualifications.

Mr. Lindsay:  As the Minister is probably aware, there are some very old manageresses, probably only three, who are having some difficulty becoming established.

Mr. Moran:  I understand there may [800] be difficulty in only one case—one or two at the most. At all events, the vast majority of them will be brought in under this scheme and I think we are doing very well in making this provision for them.

Mr. Lindsay:  I would earnestly urge the Minister to give the fullest possible consideration to each one of them, particularly the older ones. I know of one who had to retire and is now living outside this country and dependent on the social welfare benefits of another State. There are only two or three left. Cer tainly, their pioneering work, to which the Minister referred, should not be neglected, even at this late hour.

Mr. Moran:  I will have examined what the Deputy has said.

Cuireadh agus d'aontaoidh an cheist.

English version of Bill.

Question —“That Section 18 stand part of the Bill” put and agreed to.

D'aontaíodh Altanna 19 go 31.

English version of Bill.

Sections 19 to 31, inclusive, agreed to.

ALT 32.

Risteárd Ua Maolchatha:  Tairgim leasú Uimh. 13:—

Roimh fho-alt (2), fo-alt nua a chur isteach mar leanas:—

( ) Bhéarfaidh an Bord sa tuarascáil bhliantúil sin, i gcás gach tionscail agus scéime somhaoineach fostaíochta a bheas fé chumhacht an bhoird, faisnéis i dtaobh staid na Gaeilge mar ghnáth-urlabhra —

(a) in obair gach tionscail agus scéime somhaoineach fostaíochta fé leith, agus

(b) sa cheantar go bhfuil an tionscal agus an scéim sin ag freastal dó.

Do réir alt 32 (1), deanfaidh an bord é seo:—

Bhéarfaidh an bord gach bliain, ar pé dáta a ordós an tAire, tuarascáil don Aire ar imeachta an bhoird faoin Acht seo i gcaitheamh na bliana roimhe sin agus cuirfidh an [801] tAire faoi deara go leagfar cóipeanna den tuarascáil faoi bhráid gach Tí den Oireachtas.”

Molaim go mbeadh fo-alt (2) mar seo:—

Roimh fho-alt (2), fo-alt nua a chur isteach mar leanas:—

“( ) Bhéarfaidh an bord sa tuarascáil bhliantúil sin, i gcás gach tionscail agus scéime somhaoineach fostaíochta a bheas faoi chumhacht an bhoird, faisnéis i dtaobh staid na Gaeilge mar ghnáth-urlabhra—

(a) in obair gach tionscail agus scéime somhaoineach fostaíochta faoi leith, agus

(b) sa cheantar a bhfuil an tionscal agus an scéim sin ag freastal dó.”

Admhaíonn gach éinne go bhfuil dualgas ar an mbord an teanga a leathnú sa nGaeltacht agus gur chuige sin atá an obair iomlán á dhéanamh. Tuigim na deacrachtaí. Chíonn gach éinne go bhfuil deachrachtaí ann maidir leis an lucht oibre agus maidir leis na daoine eile a bhfuil baint acu leis tionscail. B'fhéidir go mba chóir go mbeadh coinníollacha sa mBille ina dtaobh. Ach, má ligtear ar lár iad, sílim go mba choir go mbeadh sé mar dhualgas ar an mbord, sa tuarascáil bhliantúil, fios a thabhairt ar staid na Gaeilge i ngach tionscal faoina churam. Má tá an dualgas sin orthu thabharfadh sé cumhacht don bord ceist na Gaeilge a choimead faoi bhreithniú i ngach tionscal. Sa tslí sin, thuigfeadh na daoine i mbun na hoibre agus na daoine ag obair sa tionscail gur chun an Ghaeilge choimead beo agus da chur chun cinn atá an obair sin go léir ar súil.

Gearóid Mac Phartalán:  Tuigim (a) den leasú seo go reasúnach maith ach ní thuigim, beag ná mór, conas a bheadh dualgas ar an mbórd tuarascáil a thabhairt ar staid na teangan sna ceantair. Dá mbeadh a leithéid sin de dhualgas ar aon udarás stáit nó aon údarás poiblí ceapaim gur faoi réim na Roinne Oideachais a bheadh sé sin.

Faoi mar a thuigim an Bille, is docha go mheadh an bord agus a chuid oifigeach tógtha suas le cursaí gnótha [802] agus tionscail. Ní dóigh liom gur cóir dualgas a chur orthu turascáil a thabhairt ar staid na teanga in aon áit ina gcuirfear monarcha ar bun.

Risteárd Ua Maolchatha:  D'aontoinn go bhfuil pointe ag an Teachta ansin.

Mícheál Ó Móráin:  Ní féidir liom glacadh leis go bhfuil gá leis an Leasú seo. Tá cumhacht ag an Aire faoi Alt 32 mar atá sé a threorú don Bhord cur síos a dhéanamh ina dTuarascáil Bhliantúil ar éinni go dteastaíonn colas uaidh ina thaobh. Tá dhá rud luaite go sonrach ag an Teachta san leasú — ceisteanna a cheapann sé go mba chóir iad a bheith mar gnéithe seasmhacha de Thurascáil an Bhoird. Béidir gur rudaí tábhachtacha iad ach isé mo thuairim nach gá iad a lua san Acht. Caipéis tábhachtach a bheas i dTuarascáil an Bhoird agus ní bheidh sé sásúil mura mbíonn cur síos iomlan ann ar na ceisteanna éagsula a bhaineas leis an mBord. Ar na ceisteanna sin ní hí an cheist is lú tábhacht an oiread feidhme a baintear as an Gaeilge mar theanga ghnótha ag an mBord agus ar ndóigh bheadh sé de dhualgas ar an Aire, ag féachaint dá fhreagracht reachtúil, féachaint chuige go dtúirfadh an bord eolas iomlán ina thaobh sin. Tá rudaí eile ann dar ndóigh go bhféadfadh an tAire iad a lua mar rudaí go mba chóir tagairt a bheith déanta dóibh i dTuarascáil an Bhoird agus ní doigh liom go dtiocfadh maitheas ar bith as dhá rud a bheith luaite go sonrach thar na rudai eile. Ar an ábhar sin is oth liom nach féidir liom glacadh leis an Leasú.

Tá an leasú eile sa mBille anois agus is soiléir go bhfuil an dualgas seo ar an mBord agus ba chóir go mbeadh an Teachta sásta leis an leasú sin.

Risteárd Ua Maolchatha:  Déanfaidh mé machtnamh ar an méid atá ráite ag an Aire agus, ar a shon sin, tarraingeoidh mé siar an leasú de lathair na huaire.

Tarraingíodh siar an leasú, faoi chead.

English version of Bill.

General Mulcahy:  I move amendment No. 13:—

[803] Before sub-section (2), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

( ) The board shall give in such annual report, in the case of every industry and productive scheme of employment under the control of the board, information as to the position of the Irish language as a vernacular language—

(a) in the work of each industry and productive scheme of employment, and

(b) in the district served by such industry and such scheme.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Cuireadh agus d'aontaíodh an cheist: “Go bhfanfaidh Alt 32 in a chuid den Bhille.”

English version of Bill.

Question —“That Section 32 stand part of the Bill”—put and agreed to.

D'aontaíodh Altanna 33 go 35, go huile.

English version of Bill.

Sections 33 to 35, inclusive, agreed to.

TEIDEAL.

Níor tairgeadh leasú 14.

Tairgeadh an cheist: “Go bhfanfaidh an Teideal mar Theideal an Bhille.”

Risteárd Ua Maolchatha:  Tá glactha ag an Aire le leasú Uimh. 14.

Micheál Ó Moráin:  Leasú 14, mar gheall ar an dTeideal?

Risteárd Ua Maolchatha:  B'fhéidir nach bhfuil gá leis anois.

Micheál Ó Móráin:  Ní gá. Braitheann sé ar an leasú eile.

Risteárd Ua Maolchatha:  Sea. Maith go leor.

Cuireadh agus d'aontaíodh an cheist.

Tuairisciodh an Bille le leasuithe.

English version of Bill.

Amendment No. 14 not moved.

Question: “That the Title be the Title to the Bill,” put and agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

[804]An Ceann Comhairle:  An chéad chéim eile?

Mícheál Ó Móráin:  Má aontaíonn an Teach, ba mhaith liom an chéad chéim eile a thógaint anocht.

Risteárd Ua Maolchatha:  Bheadh sé níos fearr an chéim sin a chur siar go dtí seachtain ón lá inniu.

Micheál Ó Móráin:  Fear óg mé agus tá deifir orm an obair a dhéanamh.

D'ordaíodh Céim na Tuarascála don Chéadaoin, 27 Samhain, 1957.

English version of Bill.

Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 27th November, 1957.

Mr. Sweetman:  On behalf of Deputy McGilligan, I move amendment No. 1:

In page 2, line 22, after “lease” to add “and includes a person for the time being entitled to the interest of the lessee in the whole or part of the land comprised in the building lease.”

I rather think the point Deputy McGilligan had in mind here is the point, under another guise, that I have in the amendment I have down to the Minister's amendment. Though it is not quite exactly the same, the point may be met by the Minister bringing in a definition of lessees to include executors, administrators and assigns. By the Minister's definition and my amendment everybody would be covered. Perhaps it would be better if we discussed the matter during the debate on my amendment.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Traynor):  I think the point is covered by my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Traynor:  I move amendment No. 2:—

In page 2, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following definitions:—

“lease” means an instrument in [805] writing, whether under or not under seal, containing a contract of tenancy in respect of any land in consideration of a rent or return and shall include a fee farm grant;

“lessee” shall, where the context so admits, be construed as including the executors, administrators and assigns of the lessee;

“lessor” shall, where the context so admits, be construed as including the heirs, executors, administrators and assigns of the lessor.

Mr. Sweetman:  I move the following amendment to amendment No. 2:—

In the definition of “lessee”, to add after “lessee” where it secondly occurs “and a person who has acquired by mortgage by sub demise the term created by the lease save a nominal reversion therein and the executors, administrators and assigns of such person”.

Amendment No. 2, which the Minister has brought in, is merely bringing out of the parent Act of 1931 the definition there included and putting it into this Bill for the purpose of making it a more coherent whole. I think it is a wise course. I should say at this stage that, during the Committee Stage of the Bill, the Minister gave an undertaking across the House that he would submit the various points raised then and let me have his observations on them before we came to discuss the Bill on the Report Stage. The memorandum he sent me was most helpful indeed and I am grateful for it.

The point in my amendment is to cover the situation which is highly technical and yet arises fairly frequently. A person who has received a building lease, a building lessee, borrows money on the security of the property demised to him by the building lease, borrows it on mortgage. The normal way for a mortgage to be drawn is that the building lessee as mortgagor would demise to the mortgagee a sub-term of years, being the equivalent of the term of years demised by the building lease, save the last day or last three days thereof; the last day or the last three days, as the case may be in its circumstances, is known as the nominal reversion. If the [806] mortgagor does not then repay the loan he has borrowed, the mortgagee, to recover the moneys he has lent, sells the property. If he does not assign the property, he has only the sub-term created by the mortgage to sell, and in certain circumstances he might not have the means of conveying the nominal reversion.

If he had not the means of conveying the nominal reversion, then it is pretty clear, as the Bill is drawn, the person who draws his title from that mortgagee sale, years and years after the mortgagee sale, would not be in a position to claim a reversionary lease. I think it is quite clear to everybody concerned, the commission, the Minister, and all of us, if a person had paid his money for the property comprised in a building lease, he should be able to get a renewal on the terms of that lease.

I would not suggest for a minute that the wording I have included in my amendment is a very eloquent wording to achieve exactly what I had in my mind. What I want to do is to protect a person who is a successor in title by purchase following mortgage in those circumstances and who has the whole term created by the reversionary lease, except the nominal reversion. I think it is desirable in such a case. I have in mind cases which I have come across in the course of my business from time to time, cases of old reversionary leases, and in particular those under the Conveyancing Act of 1881, where the root of title starts in that year. Many of them are 99 years leases and are now coming to an end. If there is no sound method put into this Bill to protect those people, whose predecessors in title have been in factual possession of the reversionary lease, whole term during all these years, then they will not be the lessees within the meaning of the Minister's amendment and will not, therefore, be entitled to the benefit.

Mr. Traynor:  It is nice to be able to pass compliments across the floor of the House and, on this occasion, it is my turn to say how grateful I was to the Deputy for sending along the letter of explanation. The position is that we have had the amendment [807] examined at very short notice and it would not be possible for me to say now that I would accept it. I would say that between now and taking the Bill into the Seanad, I will have it thoroughly examined. It is quite possible we will be able to meet the Deputy's viewpoint, to some extent, if not entirely.

Mr. Sweetman:  I am quite satisfied with that. Perhaps the Minister would give me the further courtesy of letting me know the result of that inquiry, so that I could discuss it with a colleague of mine in the Seanad.

Amendment to amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 2 agreed to.

Mr. Sweetman:  With regard to amendment No. 3, I think it would be covered by the Minister's amendment in the first place. Possibly it also becomes within the ambit of the discussions we have just been having on my amendment.

Amendment No. 3 not moved.

Mr. Traynor:  I move amendment No. 4:—

In page 2, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following definition:

“urban area” means an area which is either a county or other borough, an urban district, a town or a village.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Traynor:  I move amendment No. 5:—

In page 3, line 35, before “evidence” to insert “prima facie”.

That is where we are meeting the Deputy.

Mr. Sweetman:  You are meeting me completely on that.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Traynor:  I move amendment No. 6:—

In page 3, line 60, before “that” to insert “, until the contrary is proved,”

[808] Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Traynor:  I move amendment No. 7:—

In page 4, to delete lines 6 to 10, inclusive, and substitute:—

(5) Permanent buildings erected by a lessee in pursuance of a covenant in his lease to reinstate the buildings comprised in the lease in the event of their destruction by fire or otherwise shall be deemed to have been erected by the person who erected the original buildings.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Traynor:  Amendment No. 8 is covered by Amendment No. 7 so that it does not actually arise.

Mr. Sweetman:  I think so.

Amendment No. 8 not moved.

Mr. Sweetman:  I move amendment No. 9 on behalf of Deputy McGilligan:—

In page 4, line 7, before “to” to insert “or sublease”.

I move this amendment for the purpose of having the point considered.

Mr. Traynor:  This was also covered by No. 2, the definition of the lessee.

Mr. Sweetman:  That brings in a sub-lease as well?

Mr. Traynor:  It is fully covered.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Traynor:  I move amendment No. 10:—

In page 4, to delete lines 18 to 29, inclusive, and substitute:—

(a) a lease granted by a lessor to the nominee of a person (in this paragraph referred to as the builder) to whom land was demised for the purpose of erecting buildings thereon in pursuance of an agreement between the lessor and the builder that the builder, having contracted to sell the buildings, would surrender his lease in consideration of the lessor granting new leases to the builder's nominees; and [809] (b) a lease granted by a lessor to the nominee of a person (in this paragraph referred to as the builder) in pursuance of an agreement between the lessor, and the builder that the lessor, upon the erection of the buildings by the builder, would grant leases to the builder's nominees.

That is meeting the Deputy again.

Mr. Sweetman:  It is a re-draft of the one I said was too cumbersome.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Traynor:  I move amendment No. 11:—

In page 5, delete lines 1 to 10, inclusive, and substitute:—

(ii) for the purposes of such division of the partly-built lease, such portion of the rent reserved by that lease as is fairly attributable to the land comprised in the built-on lease shall be deemed to be apportioned to the built-on lease and the remainder of the said rent shall be deemed to be apportioned to the vacant lease, and the covenants on the lessee's part and the conditions contained in the partly-built lease shall be deemed to be apportioned likewise so as to relate separately to the land comprised in the built-on lease and to the land comprised in the vacant lease.

Mr. Sweetman:  That is meeting me again. I think it is more than a re-draft. It accepts the new principle which I suggested for the apportionment in the last case.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Sweetman:  I move amendment No. 12:—

In page 5, line 61, before “shall” to insert “or for the residue of the term created by the lease whichever shall be the shorter”.

This arises in relation to the proviso in the section of the Bill that deals with a penal or a special rent, sub-section (3) of Section 7. I have no quarrel at all with the wording of the [810] Bill as it affects a penal rent, but there are frequently cases where a lease provides that one rent will be payable if the premises are used as a private dwelling house, and another rent will be payable if the premises are used as business premises—a shop or something of that nature.

I can visualise a position in which a lessee holding under such a lease opts four years before the end of the term to change the user of the premises into shop premises. It may be termed an exceptional rent as the Bill stands because at the time the lessee, of his own volition, decided to change the user of the premises, there were not five years more to run of the term. Even though he had of his own volition changed the user, the established rent could not be taken into account in considering the rent to be fixed under the reversionary lease. I think that is undesirable.

I can appreciate the Minister's point of view that a rent not to be considered exceptional should run for five years, but I would suggest that, where the lessee makes the move less than five years before the end of the term of the lease under which he holds, that exercise of a change of user by the lessee should not enable him to plead the provisions of this section. Therefore, I have suggested that one should take five years or the residue of the term created at the particular period, whichever shall be the shorter. I think that will obviate the difficulty I visualise.

Mr. Traynor:  I have consulted the draftsman on this amendment. It is admitted that there is some ambiguity about it and between now and Committee Stage in the Seanad, we will have this re-examined, with a view to seeing how far it is possible to meet the Deputy's viewpoint.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Sweetman:  I move amendment No. 13 on behalf of Deputy McGilligan:—

In page 6, line 22, before “who” to insert “under him”.

Mr. Traynor:  Is there any case? I do not think it is necessary.

[811]Mr. Sweetman:  I am afraid I am at the disadvantage that Deputy McGilligan became unwell only in the late afternoon. I understood he was going to be here. I had not the opportunity of discussing it with him and, frankly, I do not know exactly what he had in mind.

Mr. Traynor:  I hardly think it is necessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Sweetman:  I move amendment No. 14:—

In page 6, line 23, to add after “lease” where it secondly occurs “of the land held by him under such building lease”.

Is the Minister satisfied that this is already covered?

Mr. Traynor:  I think we can accept this amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Traynor:  I move amendment No. 15:—

In page 8, line 12, before “shall” to insert “and his executors, administrators or assigns”.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:  May I point out that amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17 could be discussed together and separate decisions taken, if necessary?

Mr. Traynor:  Yes. This amendment to Section 14 (2) of the Bill, together with amendment No. 17, gives effect to suggestions made by Deputy Briscoe in Committee. They provide specifically for the eventuality that the interest of the applicant for a reversionary lease and of the person who successfully objects to the grant of the lease may have devolved on other persons before the applicant's lease expired. In regard to Deputy McGilligan's amendment, we can accept that also.

Mr. Sweetman:  I should like to make a point, if I may, on these amendments. I will be quite frank and say that I am not terribly clear whether I am strictly in order or not, but I do not think, if you bear with me, Sir, the [812] Minister will object. In the light of the Committee Stage and in the light of the amendments that have been sent to me from the Minister, a point struck me which I think is worthy of consideration.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:  I wonder could we take the amendments first and then the Deputy could raise that on the fifth stage?

Mr. Sweetman:  I think it arises on these amendments. The amendments may have to be slightly redrafted, although they cannot be redrafted at this stage.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:  Very well.

Mr. Sweetman:  In relation to the operation of Sections 11 and 12, which give the lessee the right to wait to file his application until the last day of the term under which he holds, there is then the overriding provision in Section 14 which we are suggesting should be made to cover the successors in title. There is nothing, however, in the situation to permit a lessor going to the court and asking for a declaration that the lease in question is a lease to which Section 14 will apply. We all appreciate that in relation to any reversionary lease a lessor who successfully objects to granting a renewal under Section 14 because of site development must get out architects' plans, must consider whether town planning permission will be available or not and must also very often consider whether not merely the one single lease in question would come within the ambit of Section 14 but whether, in addition, another lease or perhaps more than that would also come within it.

A person who is the lessor of, shall we say, three building leases side by side may very well have the idea that the three can be developed as one entity, as one whole, and may decide to pull down and rebuild or to reconstruct the whole of the premises demised by the three leases but he cannot take any decision until the last of the three leases to which the reversion arises has come to an end. Consequently [813] it would be much better and much cheaper for everybody that there would be a method by virtue of which one court decision would be obtained on the whole lot rather than that there should have to be three separate court actions.

I suggest that between now and the time this section comes up for consideration in the Seanad, the Minister should consider, in addition to the amendments he has put in here, whether it would not be an improvement to add a new sub-section to this section to permit a lessor to go to the court and ask for a declaration in just the same way as a lessee can at present go to the court under this section.

The suggestion I am making does not in any way impinge on the getting of, or make it more difficult for a lessee to get a reversionary lease. It does not in any way affect any of the terms in which a lessee can get a reversionary lease or change the basis of compensation which is to be paid to him, if he does not get a reversionary lease. It does what this section is intended to do, that is, to modernise. At the same time, it provides a method by which if a person is the lessor in more than one reversionary lease, there can be one court of decision to cover all the reversionary leases in question and the costs therefore will be apportioned between several premises, rather than that there should be the additional costs on each premises of a separate applicant to the court. Clearly, this is not a matter which I would expect the Minister to deal with now, but I should be grateful if he would consider the matter between now and the time it goes to the other House.

Mr. Traynor:  As the Deputy knows, these things have been tossed on to us within the past couple of days. It is very difficult to give the type of considered examination to amendments of this kind that is so necessary before we turn the Bill into law. I discussed this myself to-day with the people whom I regard as experts in this matter and I am satisfied that the Deputy is probably on the right lines, but there again I cannot say at short notice that [814] it is the sort of amendment that could be accepted right off.

Mr. Sweetman:  I did not expect the Minister to say that. I would be perfectly happy if he would consider it between now and the Committee Stage in the Seanad.

Mr. Traynor:  I was going to say that I would have the draftsmen get after it again between now and the Committee Stage in the Seanad.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 16 not moved.

Mr. Traynor:  I move amendment No. 17:—

In page 8, line 16, before “becomes” to insert “or his successor in title”.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Traynor:  I move amendment No. 18:—

In page 9, line 18, to delete “person by whom the compensation was payable” and substitute “successful objector”.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Traynor:  I move amendment No. 19:—

In page 9, to delete lines 23 to 27, inclusive, and substitute:—

(7) In this section “applicant” and “successful objector” shall, where the context so admits, be construed as including their respective executors, administrators and assigns.

This is also a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Traynor:  I move amendment No. 20:—

In page 11, lines 24 and 25, to delete “under Part V of the Act of 1931 or this Act”, and substitute “on or after the 31st day of March, 1931, to a building lessee or a proprietary lessee”.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins:  I move [815] amendment No. 21 on behalf of Deputy McGilligan:—

In page 11, line 25, before “by” to insert “on terms settled”.

I think the trouble the Deputy had in mind was the system which obtains when the court in fact deals with a dispute between a person claiming to be entitled and the lessor. I think he had in mind that in fact it is not correct that the court grants a lease but that in fact the terms of the lease are settled by the court in default of agreement between the parties. In practice, the terms would be settled in court, but the Order would be that the lessor must grant the lease and the grant comes from the lessor, not from the court. I think it is a matter that might be considered by the Minister.

Mr. Traynor:  I think we can accept that.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Traynor:  I move amendment No. 22:—

In page 11, to delete lines 33 to 51, inclusive, and substitute:—

19.—Where a lease is terminated (before the expiration thereof by effluxion of time) by ejectment for non-payment of rent, breach of covenant or otherwise or by the exercise by the lessor of a power of re-entry for breach of a covenant or a condition contained in such lease, the following provisions shall have effect:

(a) no sublease of the land or any part of the land comprised in the terminated lease which is a building lease or a proprietary lease shall be terminated by such termination;

(b) the person who would but for this section become entitled by virtue of the termination of the terminated lease to the possession of the land comprised in such sublease shall become entitled to the reversion on such sublease and, subject to section 20 of this Act, to the benefit of the rent reserved by [816] and the covenants and conditions contained in such sublease;

(c) such sublease, if not already a building lease, shall be deemed to be a building lease.

Section 19 of the Bill is a re-enactment of Section 51 of the 1931 Act and provides protection against ejectment for any immediate sublessee of the building lessee who is a proprietary lessee, in the event of the building lessee being ejected before his lease normally expires. It has been represented that the section, as it stands, is defective in three respects. Firstly, it gives no protection to a sublessee who is a building lessee, although it would be reasonable that his interests should be protected, whether or not there is a proprietary lease in existence; secondly, the section gives no protection to a sublease which is a building lease or a proprietary lease, unless it is an immediate sublease under a terminated building lease, and thirdly, there is no protection given, unless the superior lease which is terminated is a building lease or partly built lease.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Traynor:  I move amendment No. 23:—

In page 11, to delete lines 52 to 57, inclusive, and in page 12, to delete lines 1 to 12, inclusive, and substitute:—

20.—The lessee under a sublease to which paragraph (a) of Section 19 of this Act applies shall, from the date of the termination of the terminated lease, hold the land demised to him at whichever of the following rents is the greater—

(a) the rent reserved by the sublease, or

(b) such portion of the rent reserved by the terminated lease as is fairly attributable to the land comprised in the sublease.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Sweetman:  I move amendment No. 24 on behalf of Deputy McGilligan.

[817] In page 13, line 18, to delete “such person” and substitute “the person so incapable”.

In sub-section (3) of Section 23, line 18, there are the words “the court may, on the application of any person concerned, by order empower such person to grant or join in granting (as the case may be) such reversionary lease”. “Such person” there is normally taken as referring to any person who is making the application. Of course, it is not the person who is making the application who has got to join; it is the person on the other side.

Mr. Traynor:  That is the person so incapable.

Mr. Sweetman:  Yes.

Mr. Traynor:  I think that is not a good word.

Mr. Sweetman:  I would not quarrel with the Minister over the word. I am anxious to ensure that the two persons are distinguishable.

Mr. Traynor:  I would be prepared to accept that if for “incapable” were substituted the words, say, “person so bound”.

Mr. Sweetman:  Very good.

Mr. Traynor:  We accept it with that alteration.

Amendment, as altered, agreed to.

Mr. Sweetman:  I move amendment No. 25:—

In page 13, line 19, after “lease”, to add, “and a reversionary lease which a person so empowered shall grant or join in granting shall be as valid and effectual in law as if such person had been capable of granting or joining in granting such lease”.

There can be an argument that if there is not something to direct that a reversionary lease is to be valid in this way, it might be possible to offset it at a later stage as not having being granted in the ordinary way. This amendment would prevent that eventuality arising.

Mr. Traynor:  This is one of the [818] suggestions that Deputy Briscoe made that I had to turn down on that occasion. It proposes that sub-section (3) of Section 23 shall specifically provide, as sub-section (4) does, that a lease which a person is empowered to grant under the section is effectual in law. The parliamentary draftsman has considered this point carefully. He points out that there is an important distinction between sub-section (3) and sub-section (4). In sub-section (3), the person who is empowered by the court to grant a reversionary lease is the person who has power to grant it, who has already the title to the property and who would have full power to grant the lease, but for some legal incapacity such as infancy.

The sub-section provides that the court may by order empower such a person to grant a reversionary lease (in effect removing his legal capacity) and it is considered that further specific provision about the validity of the lease is unnecessary.

In sub-section (4), on the other hand, the person being appointed to execute a lease is an officer of the court who is a complete stranger to the title. For this reason the sub-section makes specific provision for the validity of the execution of the lease by such a person. I am not accepting the amendment.

Mr. Briscoe:  Is this the matter upon which Deputy Sweetman was in complete disagreement with me last week?

Mr. Sweetman:  No, it is not. The Deputy should go back and read the debate. It was on an earlier section that we were in disagreement.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins:  There may be this point in it: both sub-sections do not specifically deal with a person who is unknown or unascertained. Taking sub-section (4), where a person is an infant, that can clearly be ascertained; where a person is of unsound mind, the disability is known. Do I understand from the Minister that “cannot be found” is enough to cover “unknown” or “unascertained”? If that is his view, I think we would accept it.

Mr. Traynor:  I am not accepting the amendment.

[819]Mr. Sweetman:  If Deputy Briscoe looks at columns 582 and 584 of the Official Report last week he will see that the section upon which I expressed myself as in complete disagreement with him was Section 17. We are at Section 23 now.

Mr. Briscoe:  The Deputy will try to show a little bit of sportsmanship about it and not be crowing over an outside transaction.

Mr. Sweetman:  I am not referring to an outside transaction.

An Ceann Comhairle:  Deputies will come to the amendment now.

Mr. Sweetman:  The Deputy always honours his outside transactions.

Mr. Briscoe:  I do, and I would like the Deputy to honour his undertaking to the House last week.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Sweetman:  I move amendment No. 26 on behalf of Deputy McGilligan:—

In page 13, to delete lines 29 to 37, inclusive, and substitute:—

(5) Where any person who is bound by this section to grant or join in granting a reversionary lease is unknown or unascertained the court may, on the application of a lessee entitled under this Act to obtain a reversionary lease, by order appoint any person who is receiving the rent in respect of the applicant's interest in the premises, or such other person as the court may think fit, to represent such unknown or unascertained person in all proceedings in connection with the grant of a reversionary lease, and may by the same or a subsequent order appoint an officer of the court to execute such lease for and on behalf of the person so bound and unknown or unascertained, and thereupon the execution of such reversionary lease by such officer for and on behalf of such person shall for all purposes be as effectual as the execution thereof by such unknown or unascertained person.

(6) Where under sub-section (4) or [820] sub-section (5) of this section the court appoints an officer of the court to execute a reversionary lease for and in the name of, or for and on behalf of, any person, the court may order the rent payable under the reversionary lease to be paid into court to such account as it shall fix, or may make such order and give such directions in regard to the payment of such rent as it may deem proper.

This amendment, let me say for the benefit of Deputy Briscoe, refers to Section 23 and not Section 17.

Mr. Briscoe:  Tell us about Section 17. What did the Deputy learn over the week-end?

An Ceann Comhairle:  Section 17 is not relevant.

Mr. Briscoe:  On a point of order. The Deputy promised that he would read something over the week-end.

An Ceann Comhairle:  That is not a point of order. I do not mind what the Deputy promised.

Mr. Sweetman:  All the trouble about this arises from the fact that Deputy Briscoe did not come into the House in time for the discussion on Section 17 last week. We are now on Section 23.

Mr. Briscoe:  I did not have to come in. The Deputy agreed I was right.

An Ceann Comhairle:  Amendment No. 26.

Mr. Sweetman:  I am glad the Deputy has complete faith in my good judgment. The amendment now before the House tightens up somewhat the method of coping with a case where the lessor to an existing reversionary lease cannot be found, is unknown or unascertained. The purpose of the amendment is to amplify the powers given and to make it quite clear that in the event of a person being unknown or unascertainable, that will not constitute a bar to the lessee in obtaining his lease.

Mr. Traynor:  I am prepared to accept sub-section (5). With regard to sub-section (6), it would be necessary [821] for us to consult the court officers— for example, the accountant and so on —to get their point of view. If their point of view coincides with the form of Deputy McGilligan's amendment, that would be all right and we would accept it. We could deal with the matter then when the Bill comes before the Seanad.

Mr. Sweetman:  I am prepared to withdraw sub-section (6), leaving sub-section (5) stand. The Minister is prepared to accept sub-section (5).

Mr. Traynor:  I am prepared to accept sub-section (5) and to have sub-section (6) examined with a view, perhaps, to inserting it at a later stage in the Seanad.

Amendment, as altered, agreed to.

Question—“That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration”—put and agreed to.

Question—“That the Bill do now pass”—put and agreed to.

Rúnaí Parlaiminte an Taoisigh (Donnchadh Ó Briain):  Tuairiscíonn an Coiste Roghnaitheoireachta go bhfuil sé tar éis an Teachta Cormac Ua Breisleáin (Leas-Cheann Comhairle) d'urscaoileadh ón gComh-Choiste um Buan-Orduithe (Gnó Príobháideach) agus an Teachta Séarlas Ó hEachaidh a cheapadh ina ionad.

The Committee of Selection reports that it has discharged Deputy Cormac Breslin (Leas-Cheann Comhairle) from the Joint Committee on Standing Orders (Private Business) and has appointed Deputy Charles Haughey in substitution for him.

Ordered: That the Report do lie upon the Table.

An Ceann Comhairle:  

In pursuance of Order 56 of the Standing Orders of the Dáil and the Seanad relative to Private Business, we, the Ceann Comhairle of the Dáil and the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad, [822] jointly, hereby nominate Deputy Cormac Breslin to be Chairman of the Joint Committee on Standing Orders.

Acting-Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Aiken):  I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. I should say at the outset of the discussion that this Bill to establish an agricultural institute would not have been possible were it not for the great generosity of the United States in placing at our disposal, under the Marshall Aid Programme a considerable sum of money for this and other projects designed to develop the country's economy.

That sum, of over £6,000,000, has in conformity with the agreement signed in June, 1954, between Ireland and the United States been allotted to a number of projects some of which are now completed, and others in process of completion. The principal of these projects were the ground limestone transport subsidy scheme on which was expended £1,750,000; the bovine tuberculosis eradication scheme to which was allotted £700,000; and the pasteurisation of separated milk— £500,000; money was also made available for the assistance of rural organisations and legislation has now been introduced to set up a Scholarship Exchange Board to arrange for the interchange of students, teachers and research workers between Ireland and the United States for which a sum of £500,000 has been made available.

The agreement of June, 1954, allocated the sum of £1,840,000 for an agricultural institute. Since the idea of an agricultural institute was first mooted there has been a great deal of controversy over the form it should take and what precise functions it should assume in relation to existing institutions engaged in agricultural research and teaching in Ireland. The project of an agricultural institute raised fundamental questions about the organisation, the inter-relationships and the adequacy of the institutions concerned in relation to the needs of the country.

[823] The original proposals of the previous Government which were set out in a memorandum issued to the Press on the 15th August, 1955, envisaged that the institute would provide all higher agricultural education and that degrees would be awarded by the National Univesity or Trinity College to successful institute students. It would also have undertaken and developed research and investigation facilities. These proposals would have involved the taking over by the institute of the agricultural faculties in University College, Dublin, and Trinity College and the dairy science faculty at University College, Cork, as well as certain institutions controlled by the Department of Agriculture. These proposals appeared to the then Government to be the best that could be worked out, taking account of all the problems and difficulties.

However, as the Dáil is well aware, these proposals met with a great deal of criticism from many quarters. A few interests would have preferred an independent agricultural university on the lines of Wageningen in Holland and personally I consider that there is a good deal to be said for that point of view. Others, and these appeared to include some of the farm organisations as well as the university authorities, would have preferred to develop the existing university agricultural faculties and extend them if necessary within the universities and under university control. The previous Government's proposals of August, 1955, though in fact they lay somewhere between these two opposite positions, became the target for intense opposition and criticism, some of which might not be considered to be very well founded.

The existence of these various and fundamentally conflicting points of view created an extremely difficult situation for successive Ministers for Agriculture who eventually were forced to the conclusion that any proposals which involved interference with the existing teaching functions of the universities were highly unlikely to find that measure of acceptance without which the project could not be [824] expected to succeed. The United States authorities were also unlikely to favour any project which did not enjoy a wide measure of support among informed public opinion. It was in these difficult circumstances that Deputy Dillon, when in office, put forward the revised proposals embodied in the Bill introduced in the House in December, 1956. As Deputies are aware, that Bill was not considered by the House because of the dissolution.

The 1956 Bill proposed to confine the functions of the institute broadly to the organisation and financing of agricultural research and to post graduate work generally. These proposals were removed from the concept of an agricultural university which some people, including the late Mr. Moylan had envisaged as the ideal.

Mr. Moylan, when he took office as Minister, gave the closest possible consideration to this whole problem and to the reasons which led Deputy Dillon to introduce the December, 1956, proposals in the form they took. He considered whether it would be advisable or feasible to revert, at least partially, to the original concept of an institute comprehending both teaching and research but after close scrutiny of the difficulties involved and after consultation with the interested parties and with his colleagues in the Government, he came to the conclusion that it would be impracticable for him to depart in any substantial respect from the main principles underlying the proposals which Deputy Dillon had introduced in his Bill.

The Bill now circulated retains therefore the central idea of two funds: a permanent endowment fund of £1,000,000, the interest on which would accrue to the institute as current income, and a capital fund of £840,000 which would be used for the extension and development of research facilities of a capital nature. Interest on the capital fund will also accrue to the institute as additional current income.

The new Bill also retains the idea of an autonomous governing council for the institute which will have the general responsibility of reviewing and coordinating research work and developing research facilities.

[825] Particular functions of the institute will be to make capital grants to persons or institutions carrying out research for extension or development of their research facilities; to establish new research units itself where this seems the most desirable course and to administer such research units as may be handed over to it later. It will, among other things, advise on research programmes, give grants to assist specific research projects, provide scholarships for research workers, organise courses of study for advanced students in agricultural research and related subjects and seminars, conferences, lectures and demonstrations on specific problems.

One of its most important functions will be to arrange for the dissemination of the results of research work to all concerned but more particularly to those engaged in advising farmers. Finally it will act as adviser to the Minister for Agriculture on such problems of a scientific and research nature as he may refer to it from time to time; the kind of thing I have in mind here is that, for example, should there be an outbreak of an uncommon but serious plant disease the Minister for Agriculture should be in a position to obtain the best expert advice on how to deal with it.

This council, which will have to supervise these manifold activities will be representative of farming interests, the universities and of the State and if our hopes are realised it will have as members people of high standing in the research field and with competent knowledge of agricultural problems and needs.

The whole scheme of the Bill revolves round the council and it is not too much to say the potential value of the institute will be directly proportionate to the efficiency of the council in discharging the heavy responsibilities to be entrusted to it. One of the major tasks of the council will be to review the existing organisation of and the facilities for research in this country and to consider carefully the lines of future development, and it is the Government's hope that this will [826] be the first important task to which the council will address itself.

On the matter of the organisation of the institute the late Mr. Moylan had decided, that it would be better to separate the functions of chairman of the council and executive head of the institute and it will be observed that the present Bill contains a new Section 7 providing for a director and outlining his position and responsibilities. Under the new scheme the chairman of the council—who would be part-time—will broadly be responsible for presiding over the policy-making deliberations of the council while the director will be the chief officer of the institute, responsible for implementing the policy and decisions of the council. He will also be in a position to propose action to the council.

While the capital resources and current income available to the institute from its capital and endowment funds will be substantial, the Bill further contemplates that where this income is insufficient for the needs of the institute, it will be supplemented out of voted moneys, the amount of the State contribution to be decided each year after consultation between the council, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Agriculture and due consideration being given to the income and expenditure position of the institute. I am sure that the Dáil will be generous in providing whatever funds are found to be necessary to supplement the institute's own income. It is intended that the proposals in this Bill will form the basis of an agreement with the United States authorities and to that end the two Governments are keeping in close touch with each other.

While the institute, the framework of which is before you, is not as far-reaching in the scope of its functions as many would have liked, still the potential for good and for the development and assistance of agriculture in the difficult future ahead is very great and, within the sphere allocated to it, it has the opportunity, if it exercises its functions with vision and efficiency, to bring about a major transformation in Irish agriculture. If the institute is to succeed in this it will require the [827] full co-operation, support and understanding of all the interests concerned and more particularly that of the farmers themselves and of the universities with whom it will have to work in very close association. It was the late Mr. Moylan's wish that it should get this co-operation and I am sure it is the wish of all of us interested in the welfare of agriculture.

Debate adjourned.

An Ceann Comhairle:  The following message has been received from the Seanad:—

“Seanad Éireann has passed the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1957, without amendment.”

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That Dáil Éireann is of the opinion that the Government should forthwith release from custody the member of Dáil Éireann and other persons who are interned under the Offences against the State Acts.— (Deputies McQuillan and Finucane.)

Mr. Norton:  How much more time is being given for discussion on this motion?

An Ceann Comhairle:  Five minutes.

Mr. McQuillan:  In connection with the five minutes allowed, I want to make it clear that I am willing to sacrifice part of the time which would be available to me on other motions standing in my name so that extra time would be given to this motion and that other Deputies would be given an opportunity to speak on the motion. There are a number of other motions in my name and, as I have stated, I am willing to give up portion of the time to which I am entitled for discussion of these motions, if the [828] House is agreeable. Otherwise, in the five minutes which are left I am entitled to reply to the debate.

An Ceann Comhairle:  Deputy John A. Costello in possession.

Mr. Norton:  Will the debate finish in five minutes?

An Ceann Comhairle:  I am guided by Standing Orders.

Mr. J.A. Costello:  Do we take it that I will get five uninterrupted minutes?

An Ceann Comhairle:  I am prepared to give Deputy Costello until ten minutes past nine.

Mr. J.A. Costello:  That is only four minutes.

An Ceann Comhairle:  Until 11 minutes past.

Mr. McQuillan:  I insist on my right to reply to the debate.

Mr. J.A. Costello:  The Deputy himself waived that right the other day.

An Ceann Comhairle:  Three hours are allowed for a motion of this nature. If the Deputy refers to Standing Orders he will find that out. Deputy John A. Costello was speaking when the debate was adjourned and he is entitled to the five minutes left.

Mr. McQuillan:  There are five minutes left and the mover of the motion has the right to reply. If Deputy Costello gets five minutes——

An Ceann Comhairle:  Subject to Standing Orders.

Mr. McQuillan:  It has never happened before in this House that the mover of a motion was denied the right to reply to the debate.

Mr. Norton:  I understand the Deputy waived that right last week.

Mr. McQuillan:  I am entitled to that five minutes and I insist on my rights.

An Ceann Comhairle:  I am calling on Deputy John A. Costello.

[829]Mr. McQuillan:  I am insisting on my right to reply and I insist on getting the five minutes remaining. As I said earlier, I am prepared to sacrifice——

An Ceann Comhairle:  The Deputy is obstructing the proceedings. The Deputy is not entitled to any time since he has already abrogated his right.

Mr. McQuillan:  I did not abrogate my right. I insisted, when I moved this Motion, that the seconder of the Motion reserved the right to reply.

An Ceann Comhairle:  Deputy John A. Costello.

Mr. J.A. Costello:  It is ten minutes past nine now. Do I take it that I am to have five uninterrupted minutes?

Mr. McQuillan:  This is a deliberate attempt on the part of the Leader of the Opposition to prevent me from replying to this Motion. It has not happened in this House before.

An Ceann Comhairle:  Deputy John A. Costello has a right to speak. He was speaking when the debate was adjourned and he may conclude his statement.

Mr. J.A. Costello:  The inter-Party Government was faced with this problem of Partition and the unlawful use of force and had to frame a policy to meet the situation. Because we in that Government were deeply sensitive to the wrongs of Partition and anxiously concerned to avoid another clash between an Irish Government and a section, however small, of the Irish people, we exercised the utmost forbearance and patience in our dealings with these unlawful associations. We stretched that forbearance and patience to the utmost limit. On the 13th November, 1955, I made in this House on behalf of the Government one last appeal based on reason. That appeal went unheeded and we took action. We had the Border patrolled by members of our own police force and we had our own military forces standing by.

We enforced the laws of our own Parliament and prosecuted offenders against the Irish law in the regular [830] Irish courts. We took steps to inform and educate public opinion and to mobilise that opinion behind our policy. Through the churches and the schools and the organs of public opinion generally we endeavoured to ensure that a true concept of what was at issue would be understood and accepted by the people particularly by young people. We hoped, by these means, to limit and curtail and ultimately to disperse its members and those actively engaged in unlawful activities and to stop the inflow of young people who might be attracted to those activities by false concepts of patriotism and the creation of false consciences. We did not utilise the machinery of internment that lay ready to our hands because we regard that as the line of least resistance and as the least likely to produce permanent results. It would only be adopted as a very last resort——

Mr. McQuillan:  On a point of order —may I take it that the Leader of the Opposition will allow me at least two minutes to reply?

An Ceann Comhairle:  That is not a point of order.

Mr. McQuillan:  I think it is a very fair suggestion——

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle:  Deputy McQuillan must resume his seat.

Mr. McQuillan:  I want to protest at this stage, Sir, at your action in taking the part of the Leader of the Opposition in preventing me from replying to the debate. This, in my opinion, is a disgraceful attempt to prevent free expression of opinion——

An Ceann Comhairle:  I cannot prevent the Deputy from having any opinion he likes, but I would be reluctant to oblige the Deputy by having him removed from the House.

Mr. J.A. Costello:  We took the harder course——

Mr. McQuillan:  Is there any possibility that the Leader of the Opposition——

(Interruptions.)

[831]Mr. J.A. Costello:  ——of endeavouring to eradicate the evil——

Mr. McQuillan:  I think this is an intolerable situation——

Mr. J.A. Costello:  ——through the enforcement of the law in the regular courts——

Mr. McQuillan:  I think this is unfair and I am calling on you, a Cheann Comhairle, not to allow any deliberate——

An Ceann Comhairle:  I am not anxious to oblige Deputy McQuillan. That is what is preventing me from using the power that is vested in me by the House.

Mr. McQuillan:  I want the members of the House to go into the Division Lobby to show what their opinion is. That is why I want to put one point clearly before the House——

Mr. T. Lynch:  You had two hours.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. J.A. Costello:  ——with the help of public opinion becoming daily more enlightened and appreciative of the national dangers.

We believed, as we now believe, that that policy would have succeeded. The present Government has adopted a different policy and theirs is the responsibility, and on their actions they will be judged. We cannot, even if we believe, as we do believe, that our policy is better and more likely to bring permanent benefit, embarrass the Government or give comfort to those who still deny the authority of the State by voting for this Motion, but we still think they should have adopted our policy in striving to take active steps to inform public opinion.

The mover of this Motion resorted to a quotation from His Holiness the Pope, to support the arguments he made. May I now give a quotation from His Holiness, which is applicable not only to the people for whom the [832] mover of this Motion purports to speak, but also to those who support and maintain Partition? This is a quotation from an address over the radio by the Holy Father a few days before the outbreak of World War II:—

“It is by force of reason, not of arms, that justice prevails; empires not founded upon justice are not blessed by God. Politics divorced from morality betray the very people who treat them as such.”

That is applicable to those who are engaged in unlawful activities against this State and to those who are maintaining the partition of our country.

Mr. Norton:  On a point of order— before the Vote is taken, I wish to say this discussion has taken a most unusual and unprecedented course. The Labour Party was prepared to support this Motion, or indeed any Motion condemning internment without trial in the existing situation, but we are not prepared to support the Motion for the reasons Deputy McQuillan has given. We wanted an opportunity of explaining why we would vote for this Motion or any similar Motion, but we have been denied that by the filibustering speech of Deputy McQuillan. Consequently, we are not prepared to vote when our reasons have not been explained.

Mr. McQuillan:  That is sheer bluff.

(Interruptions.)

A Deputy:  You got your answer in the by-election.

Mr. McQuillan:  So did Fianna Fáil.

Mr. T. Lynch:  So did Sinn Féin.

Question put and declared lost.

Mr. McQuillan:  Vótáil.

An Ceann Comhairle:  Would the Deputies challenging a Division please rise in their places?

Deputies Finucane, McQuillan, Johr. Murphy, Tierney and Tully rose.

[833] The Dáil divided: Tá, 5; Níl, 103.

Finucane, Patrick.
McQuillan, John.
Murphy, John.
Tierney, Patrick.
Tully, John.

Níl

Aiken, Frank.
Allen, Denis.
Barry, Richard.
Bartley, Gerald.
Beegan, Patrick.
Blaney, Neal T.
Boland, Gerald.
Boland, Kevin.
Booth, Lionel.
Brady, Philip A.
Brady, Seán.
Brennan, Joseph.
Brennan, Paudge.
Breslin, Cormac.
Briscoe, Robert.
Browne, Seán.
Burke, James.
Burke, Patrick.
Byrne, Patrick.
Calleary, Phelim A.
Carty, Michael.
Childers, Erskine.
Clohessy, Patrick.
Coburn, George.
Coogan, Fintan.
Corry, Martin J.
Costello, Declan D.
Costello, John A.
Cotter, Edward.
Crotty, Patrick J.
Crowley, Honor M.
Cunningham, Liam.
Davern, Mick.
de Valera, Eamon.
de Valera, Vivion.
Dillon, James M.
Doherty, Seán.
Dooley, Patrick.
Egan, Kieran P.
Egan, Nicholas.
Esmonde, Anthony C.
Fagan, Charles.
Fanning, John.
Flanagan, Oliver J.
Flanagan, Seán.
Flynn, Stephen.
Galvin, John.
Geoghegan, John.
Gibbons, James.
Gilbride, Eugene.
Giles, Patrick.
Gogan, Richard P.
Griffin, James.
Haughey, Charles.
Healy, Augustine A.
Hillery, Patrick J.
Hilliard, Michael.
Hogan, Bridget.
Hughes, Joseph.
Humphreys, Francis.
Jones, Denis F.
Kenneally, William.
Kennedy, Michael J.
Kenny, Henry.
Killilea, Mark.
Kitt, Michael F.
Lemass, Noel T.
Lemass, Seán.
Lindsay, Patrick.
Loughman, Frank.
Lynch, Celia.
Lynch, Jack.
Lynch, Thaddeus.
MacCarthy, Seán.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
MacEntee, Seán.
MacEoin, Seán.
McMenanmin, Daniel.
Maher, Peadar.
Manley, Timothy.
Medlar, Martin.
Moher, John W.
Moloney, Daniel J.
Mooney, Patrick.
Moran, Michael.
Mulcahy, Richard.
Murphy, William.
Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
O'Donnell, Patrick.
O'Higgins, Michael J.
O'Higgins, Thomas F.
O'Malley, Donogh.
Ormonde, John.
O'Sullivan, Denis J.
Palmer, Patrick W.
Rogers, Patrick J.
Rooney Eamonn.
Ryan, James.
Sheldon, William A.W.
Sheridan, Michael.
Smith, Patrick.
Sweetman, Gerard.
Traynor, Oscar.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies McQuillan and Finucane; Níl: Deputies Ó Briain and Hilliard.

Question declared lost.

Mr. McQuillan:  Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are together now, where they should have been for a long time—and the public realise it now.

[834]An Ceann Comhairle:  Order!

Mr. McQuillan:  They are not twisting John Bull's tail now.

An Ceann Comhairle:  Item 21—[835] motion in the names of Deputies Dr. Browne and McQuillan.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan:  Perhaps Deputy Dr. Browne might like to explain why he ran out of the House in order to avoid the Division.

Mr. Sweetman:  Hear, hear. Sauve qui peut.

Dr. Browne:  I move:—

That Dáil Éireann is of the opinion that Seanad Éireann as it is at present constituted should be abolished.

In moving this motion it is necessary to go over some of the history associated with the formation of the Seanad and its subsequent career. This is the second time that a motion of this nature was moved in this House. On the previous occasion, however, the motion simply asked for the abolition of the Seanad as it stood. It was moved by the present Taoiseach, Deputy de Valera, and behind him he had the backing of an effective majority, with which, there was no doubt, he intended to implement his will.

I do not intend to go into the reasons why the then Taoiseach, Deputy de Valera, insisted on the removal or abolition of the Seanad but I shall draw to a very considerable extent on many of the very cogent, telling and compelling arguments which he used at that time in order to try to persuade the House to agree that a Seanad as such or, indeed, any Second Chamber at all was neither desirable nor necessary in a democratic society. As two Independents, it is quite clear that we cannot depend on the great overwhelming majority of a Party. Possibly because of that it should be possible to get a more reasoned argument from both sides of the House, to have the motion considered in a non-Party way, and, if possible, allow the Deputies to express their viewpoint independent of the Party Whip.

To those who feel that the Seanad is serving a useful purpose as it is and do not want to have it changed, I [836] would very much like if they would put forward their arguments and try to justify their belief. I should not like to treat the House in the positively boisterous way in which the Taoiseach, Deputy de Valera, treated it away back in 1934, when he put the onus entirely upon the Oppositon to prove that the Seanad was required. He said in Volume 52, column 1809, of the Dáil Debates:—

“When I introduced the Bill I said —and I repeat it—that the onus was on the Opposition to show why there should be a Second Chamber. Why should we complicate legislative machinery unnecessarily? There is nothing in reason in the nature of representative Government that would at all have suggested to anybody a check in a Second Chamber, such as the Senate is.”

Later, in the same column, he said:—

“To me, it was just as if I were to have to defend the removing of hobble skirts. It is for those who say that hobble skirts, which restrict natural movement, should be worn to show why they should be worn—in other words, to show why these restrictions and this unnecessary complication in the legislative machinery should be there.”

He continued with even more arguments of a similar kind. He at that time was quite definitely and deliberately opposed to the idea of a Second Chamber at all. In that he was being very consistent in so far as he was emphasising a point of view which both he and Deputy Lemass expressed as far back as 1928 that nothing could be done about the Second Chamber; there was no advantage in a Second Chamber and that it should be abolished.

We are not being so revolutionary. We merely suggest that the Seanad, as at present constituted, should be abolished, which allows for a fair amount of latitude in propositions for its reconstitution in a very effective form. In column 140, Volume 22, of the Official Debates for the year 1928, the Taoiseach maintains his consistency. He said:—

[837]“We are against the setting up of this particular committee.”

It was a Joint Committee to inquire into the method of election to the Seanad.

“We think the proper thing to do is to end the Senate and not to attempt to mend it. It is costly, and we do not see any useful function that it really serves.”

At the same time Deputy Lemass said:—

“I think that the public feeling throughout the country is very strongly in favour of the abolition of the Senate, not to patch it up... They are like a tame dog, prepared to do anything the Executive Council orders them to do, and this is the farce which it is proposed now to rejuvenate at a cost to the State of over £30,000 a year.”

It is a strange thing that the cost is much the same and there are many people who would agree with Deputy Lemass that the Seanad is still a farce and, while I do not want to use such a strong word, there is a case to be made for such a viewpoint. You had that viewpoint in 1928, again in 1934 and it was reiterated on a number of occasions by Deputy de Valera, both as President and Taoiseach. That shows a very definite pattern of consistency in relation to the abolition of the whole idea of an Upper House.

I have no objection in the world to people having a point of view and changing that point of view if they so wish if valid, compelling and intelligible reasons are put forward. My attitude to the Seanad is very close to what the Taoiseach's point of view used to be. I hold to the view that it is a superfluous body, particularly in its present form. I cannot see why it should be maintained as a deliberative assembly. It might be of some help as an advisory council, but as a deliberative assembly no case at all can be made for it.

However, I think that the whole basis of democracy presupposes that there shall be a main legislative assembly—the Dáil. I think its functions are mainly through its executive [838] council, its Cabinet, to drive a tendency through the legislation; to accept responsibility for that legislation, and to lay down a policy which the people can consider, accept or reject. The fourth point is that it accepts responsibility for raising the finances in order to put that particular programme into operation.

That has the great advantage that it is possible for the people to praise or to blame the Executive Council, the Government and the Cabinet for whatever the results of that policy may be. That council is responsible to the public. It is elected. Governments are made and unmade by the people. Consequently, it seems to me, that that is the whole essence of the proper democratic approach with the Second Chamber form of Government, with suitable advisory councils, for legislation if the need arises.

The evolution of democracy shows a century old pattern, the attempt made by the people to achieve complete control over their own affairs and to decide and arbitrate as to the way in which they will order their lives. It evolved in our countries at least by way of Runnymede, Magna Charta, the Divine Rights of Kings and the transmission of that power to barons, landlords, right on to the industrial barons of recent years, and up to the present time, when the people are attempting to wrest from them the control of their own affairs. The feudal powers of the landed aristrocracy have been replaced by other devices for restricting the real power of the people, resting in its deliberative assembly, such as this Dáil, the most important being, of course, the maintenance of a sufficient level of illiteracy or mass uneducation to permit people to accept legislation which is contrary to their best interests.

The deliberative assembly, the Dáil, is nominated from the people as a result of consultation with the people as to the point of view or the programme which they wish to implement. It seems to me that that Chamber is the first democratically elected body and, consequently, that there could be no interference with its [839] legislation. I believe, from that fact, that, in the first place, there could be no Second Chamber which may veto legislation passed by the First House. That is unthinkable. I do not believe anybody would seriously suggest it as a proposition for a Second House in any modern democratic society.

I think there are serious suggestions as to the next point which is usually made and that is that a Second House can delay or revise legislation, can and should delay or revise legislation. The present Taoiseach, Deputy de Valera, used to refute most strongly—and I agree completely with all his arguments in his refutations—that the theory that the Second House should act as a brake was fallacious. I agree with him there. He used these arguments very strongly indeed. It was put to him that the Second House can obstruct the tendency towards the development of a dictatorship. I think he had no difficulty at all in disposing of that point. May I quote him, because I agree with those arguments? I think they are very good arguments. I should like to hear answers to these arguments, if there are answers to them.

At columns 1851-52 of the Official Report of the 25th May, 1934, he is reported as saying:—

“We are apt to think of a Second Chamber and base our conclusions upon it on two very false assumptions. One is that it is a check or a brake which will operate at the time that we think brakes and checks ought to act; and secondly, that we can compose a Seanad of persons who will take a detached view, and will not be affected by political passions at a moment of crisis. Those are two absolutely false assumptions. That they are false appears at once the moment you examine them closely. The very idea of a brake is that there is somebody who will put it into operation just when it is wanted. When the motor is speeding downhill the person at the wheel has got this particular device at his command, by which he is able to check the mad career of the car which may take [840] him over a precipice. There is there the controlling power, but what is a Second Chamber when we think of it as a brake? Does it act in that way? Will it act just as we want it to act, supposing at a time when democracy is heading for ruin? We cannot provide that it will act. It is much more likely to act like a badly adjusted brake, which will act when it is a cause of friction; when it is preventing the car from getting up the speed which is necessary in order to travel properly. It operates in times of ordinary activity. It operates to prevent the speed which is necessary, and which otherwise could be attained. It is a cause of friction. It operates then because it is easy for it to operate then. It certainly does not operate at the time when we want it most—at the time of crisis—because, as I have said before, in times of revolution it is swept aside,...”

He then gave the example of Napoleon. He referred to Cromwell's sweeping aside of the Second Chamber and the establishment of a dictatorship. Then he brought in the canard about dictators. There have been dictators in our time who have ignored both the First and Second Chambers. He said that the argument for a Second House is completely fallacious. He is quite right. It is clear that if a dictator should come into power in a democracy in which two Houses existed the dictator could abolish the Second House, or both Houses, if he were sufficiently strong-minded. Indeed, one of the arguments he did not use at the time, and I think it was a very telling one, was that, as a very determined head of Government, he himself introduced legislation which swept aside the Second Chamber which was, I understand, trying to obstruct the passage of legislation at that time. I think that argument did not seem to strike the people who pleaded that the Seanad should be retained in order that it might act as a brake on legislation or prevent the development of a dictator. I am not suggesting that Deputy de Valera, the Taoiseach, is a dictator. However, it certainly did not prevent his sweeping the Seanad aside because he felt that, as he said, it was [841] a brake preventing the Government from developing the rate of legislative speed which he then seemed to think was very necessary.

As to the question of delaying legislation, I find that suggestion, when put forward by anybody in this House, rather offensive. We must assume a literate electorate which has considered carefully our qualifications for Government, for legislation. We, to the best of our ability, have come in here, considered the points of view of the people who have elected us, and passed legislation through this House which we believe is in accordance with their will. I can see no reason why we should deliberately accept a Second House which would have a right to interfere with what is essentially the expression of the public will in relation to legislation. That the suggestion should be put forward, as it was put forward to the present Taoiseach years ago, in 1934, that it would be desirable to keep a Second Chamber in order to revise or delay legislation seems to me to indicate a very considerable inferiority complex on the part of Deputies in this House who did not feel sufficiently confident on their own abilities to pass intelligent and rational legislation without the help of a Second House.

There is no reason in the world that the Second House would have any monopoly of infallibility or wisdom which was not already available to the first House. With regard to the questions of revision and delay, I do not think that if the revision is a minor one it needs a Second Chamber costing, as it has cost in the past three or four years, £161,000 to make such minor revisionary legislation and suggestions. Assuming the revisions are of a major character they should be made here. They should be debated in this House and the Government should be in a position to decide on the merits of the proposed revisions, accepting or rejecting them after debates, rather than that they should be carried out, deliberated upon and considered in another House in which the Deputies would not have an opportunity of making their points of view known.

[842] On the question of the desirability of the Second Chamber in order to delay legislation, I object in principle. It is suggested it should be necessary but it seems to me that it ignores completely the whole development of legislation in modern society, in the modern political world of politics. The suggestion that one should have a brake, or a delaying process such as a Second Chamber, in order to delay legislation seems to me to be completely unrealistic. One of the most remarkable things about legislation is not the speed with which it goes through but the slowness, the great time it takes, to get the most moderate proposal through the modern deliberative, legislative assembly.

It is a fact that any sort of reasonably revolutionary idea has to be first of all considered by a Party. In that Party it has to be voted upon between the two wings of the Party, the right and the left, the progressive and the reactionary, the radical and the conservative. If it originates amongst the executive of the Party it has to be debated amongst the followers of the Party. It has to be sold by the right wing to the left wing, or the left wing to the right wing as the case may be. Then it has to be sold to the body of the organisation and the next important step is that it has to be put across to the people. In that one has the tremendous difficulties of newspaper propaganda, the education of newspapers, the grotesque education of newspapers, that is there. It is an important consideration in trying to establish the political point of view. One has also the tremendous power of the radio, through discussions, debates and questions on these matters and, of course, one has now the development of television. It is quite clear that the politician and political Party in a modern democracy have to carry the mass of the people with them in the annunciation of policy, or in any suggestion that radical and fundamental changes in national policy should be carried through by a political Party, in a legislative assembly when the Party takes office and it has to draft legislation.

Proposals for legislation then go to the civil servants who naturally with [843] their tremendous resources of knowledge and experience of such matters give their advice. That can be a very difficult thing if the Executive is not sure of itself, yet there is a further sifting process in which the civil servants put their views forward and the executive defends its views. A Bill then comes into the House for First Reading, Second Reading, Committee Stage, Report Stage, and all the very detailed analyses of criticism, constructive and destructive of Opposition, whose job it is to see that the legislation is as sane, as reasonable and as sensible as possible. In those circumstances what is the need for the delaying process of a Second Chamber?

Most legislation, even before we became reasonably democratic in these countries, most ideas that have been debated, most radical changes that have taken place, have taken years to go through enacting process. Some Home Rule Bills were, I believe, being discussed for anything up to 30 years in the British Parliament. They are still trying to reform the British House of Lords some 100 years later. I am quite satisfied in my mind that we are not finished discussing health legislation here, that it will continue to go on for five, ten, 20 or 30 years. All other basic proposals are debated for five, ten, 15 or 20 years before they are made law. As I say I cannot see that there is a really sound case for the proposition that there should be a Second Chamber in order to see that legislation is without any flaw.

Various other suggestions have been made as to the necessity of a Second Chamber. There is the suggestion that the Second Chamber will safeguard the liberties of the people. I do not know why the Second Chamber should be expected to safeguard the liberties of the people. This is where the liberties of the people should be safeguarded, in the Dáil, in the elected House. We could not be permitted by an intelligent electorate to interfere with the liberties of the people. What right have these people to advocate this idea, to suggest that a second nonrepresentative, [844] undemocratic body like the Seanad or British House of Lords, would have the slightest interest in the protection of the liberties of the people, or anyway, more interest than we would have?

Such undemocratic bodies have no rights or responsibilities to protect the people. A body such as the House of Lords is composed of a group of people who represent a dying class. They represent nobody but themselves. They have no concern with the interests of the mass of the people. Similarly, in our own Second Chamber, the body is composed of vocational groups, some of which are concerned with the veterinary profession, some the agricultural industry, some the medical profession and the trade unions or other big subgroups of our society. They have no direct responsibility for the big mass of the people.

The present Taoiseach described the position in a much more telling manner than I could when he spoke on the Constitution (Amendment) Bill in 1934. In Volume 52 of the Official Report he is quoted as having said:—

“At the time of the adjournment last night I was concluding the examination of the argument which was put forward from the Opposition Benches that history had shown that a Second Chamber was an effective safeguard of the liberties of the people. That argument was put forward in answer to my challenge to show why this complication of a Second Chamber was necessary. I said that it did not arise out of the idea of representative Government at all; that in my view the existence of a Second House as part of the legislature of several countries was very much an accident, and that the fact that it existed was no proof at all that it had a right to exist, or that its existence was really a benefit. My conclusion, at any rate, is that a fair reading of history proves not that a Second Chamber is an effective safeguard either of constitutions or of the people's liberties which are supposed to be enshrined in these constitutions, but that, at a time of revolution when a military leader, backed by force, snapped his fingers at all [845] constitutions, he did not care very much whether it was a Single Chamber or a Double Chamber Legislature he was putting aside.”

Nobody could, I think, contradict or refute that perfectly rational and reasonable suggestion based on our whole experience of historical events. I do not think anybody could conclude that there is in a Second Chamber any really effective safeguard in times of crisis.

It certainly did not protect the then Seanad from the then President of the Executive Council. There is a suggestion that we could patch up the present Seanad by altering the system of election. I should be very glad to hear views on a satisfactory scheme for election to the Seanad by any who care to put them forward. To the best of my ability I have given as much thought as I could to ideas for the election of suitable and satisfactory Second Chambers. What is very much more important is that legislatures throughout the world and talented and gifted legislators have tried to find some solution for this curious yearning by people for Second Chambers. Again I can quote the present Taoiseach, speaking in 1934, and reported in Volume 52, column 1853 of the Official Report:—

“If we spent a little time in examining the various propositions that from time to time have been put forward for the election of a Seanad we would see how vain it is to hope for, and how impossible it is to attain anything like an approximation to this ideal Seanad.”

How right he was in that analysis. How right he is shown to have been. The various means of electing a Seanad have been considered from time to time. They were considered by the then Government in 1937. The then President made it quite clear that they had given a lot of thought to the question and had been unable to devise any way of getting a competent Seanad. The hereditary way we can dismiss as unacceptable. The curious anachronism of the House of Lords in Great Britain is one of the amazing vestiges one finds from time to time. With their monarchy in Great Britain, [846] they have this House of Lords as a totem pole for which there is not any reasonable explanation and the miracle is that they have been able to proceed along the way of democracy even to the extent they have gone.

There has been a suggestion—I do not think such a suggestion could be put forward seriously—that the Seanad be elected in the same way as the Dáil. That would give us a duplication of this Chamber which would be completely unnecessary and undesirable. The suggestion that the Second Chamber should be elected by a system of nomination has been tried in a number of countries. I believe Canada is one. The United States, at one stage, is another. I do not think anybody has any doubt that a system of election by nomination is an inefficient system for the achievement of an efficient Seanad. It is said to maximise the level of corruption in political elections. The suggestion put forward by the Taoiseach once upon a time was that eligible types of individuals, people such as distinguished poets, painters and retired politicians, should have their names put in the hat and drawn out. That was an original suggestion. It is indeed a bizarre one and it really appeals to me as one of the most sensible of all I have heard.

The Taoiseach:  Would the Deputy be good enough to give us the reference? I am interested in that statement.

Dr. Browne:  I have not got it at the moment.

The Taoiseach:  It escapes my recollection.

Dr. Browne:  Curiously enough, it was the one suggestion that seemed to me to be the rather desperate expedient of a desperate man who had given the matter a tremendous amount of thought and who decided: “This is the only practical way that I can see out of the dilemma of trying to create a satisfactory Seanad.” There have been suggestions that there would be the benefits of the advisory functions of Senators, such as those just mentioned, great painters, experts in the law, medical practitioners, poets, writers and distinguished persons of all [847] kinds. The suggestion is that if they were in the Seanad, they could add greatly to the consideration of the legislative proposals because of the mature consideration they might give them, because of the non-political objective analysis they might bring to bear and in that way, they could save legislation from the effects that complicate our opinion here because we happen to hold different political viewpoints.

I think that is a fallacious suggestion. First of all, it is fallacious that such a Seanad would be of any value. There is a difficulty about a Seanad in which there are these different people, with different avocations in that it is very little different from this House but with this disadvantage. At least we have some experience of politics but poets, artists or engineers could consider legislation, say, a Health Bill, with only negligible experience and would be able to make only a negligible contribution to consideration of that legislation. If an individual in that Seanad, say, a poet or writer, had any particular expert knowledge of the subject which they were debating, clearly it would be just a coincidence. Therefore, that House could not add anything to legislation that was not already available to any one of us here, except coincidentally. Consequently, I do not think such a proposal is of any value.

There is another point advanced that these people might be lacking entirely in a political point of view and political bitterness. I think it is only correct they should have a political point of view. They might not give it much thought but subconsciously most of us have a view on these matters. Whether artists, painters, writers, architects or doctors, I do not think our political views change fundamentally because of our avocation, and the fact that people are old does not mean that they are free from prejudices or free from bitterness in their consideration of legislation.

Again, I am backed up in that point of view by the present Taoiseach, the [848] then President, in May, 1934, when he said, in Volume 52, column 1857, of the Official Reports:—

“I am talking of what is the conception of people who think this Second Chamber is so valuable? They have an idea of experienced people who are not swayed by the passions that are supposed to sway us.”

Deputy MacDermott remarked:—

“I am afraid the old are just as much swayed by passion as the young.”

And the President then said:—

“Exactly. I was going to make that remark a few moments ago but I just passed away from it in the sequence of thought. I believe they are not less affected. They are far worse. That is not my own belief alone. There is something generous about the antagonism of the young but when you get old antagonisms that have been burned into the bone they are far more vicious and far more dangerous. There is nothing of the generosity about them that there is about the antagonisms of the young.”

I do not go as far as the present Taoiseach in that point of view, because I do not think the old, or the young, have any monopoly of bitterness, prejudices, conservatism, radicalism or anything else. I think it is an unfair generalisation. At the same time, it would be wrong to say that a Seanad, or a Second Chamber, would have any merit or virtue merely because one had it full of greybeards.

Then there is the question of the vocational type of Seanad. That was dealt with at great length at that time and the Opposition at the time seemed to believe it was a desirable way in which to form a Second House. To me, vocational government as such is anathema. This is the only form of Government, or deliberative assembly, where we are elected by the people and responsible to the people, whatever our political beliefs. It is the ideal form of Government and any suggestion of a vocational type of Government would be, to me, anathema. [849] At the same time, I can well see that, in the vocational bodies, there must be a fund of experience and special knowledge which would be of great value to us here in formulating legislation, amending legislation or perfecting legislation. We should try to find the way in which the experience of these vocational groups could be channelled into helping the legislation that we bring here from time to time.

That is the kernel of the problem; to try to devise an effective Second Chamber, if such a proposition is to be seriously considered by this House, as long as it could be accepted that the vocational committees would have absolutely no power whatever except to suggest revisions in legislation and amendments to legislation. Then it seems that there could be some reasonable case made for trying to tap the resources and experience of these bodies. We have at our disposal many of these bodies, such as the Health Council, the Farmers' Association, R.G.D.A.T.A. and indeed the Druggists' Association, and such like bodies who could perform a useful function in helping us with legislation.

Debate adjourned.

An Ceann Comhairle:  Deputy Browne has given notice that, on the motion for the adjournment, he wishes to raise the subject matter of Questions Nos. 17 and 18, on to-day's Order Paper.

Dr. Browne:  I raise this matter because I was disturbed by the answers I got to my questions from the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I was particularly disturbed for the reason that the questions dealt with restrictive trade practices, with special reference to restrictive trade practices in the manufacture, distribution and sale of patent medicines, proprietary preparations and, in particular, infant foods and toilet preparations. I was disturbed by a number of features. One was the fact that the Minister had considered the report of the Fair Trade [850] Commission. The report, which was submitted in December, 1956, lay in the Department of Industry and Commerce through the term of office of the former Minister for Industry and Commerce for a period of two and a half months. It is clear he sat on it and did nothing about it until the present Minister took over. My complaint is that he also did nothing, on the one hand, about the implementation of the recommendations which were made there or, on the other hand, about an explanation to the public as to why he did not accept those recommendations. May I point out that Section 9 (5) of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1953, lays down that the Minister must either accept the recommendations of the commission or, if he does not do that, give an explanation as to why he is not prepared to accept their recommendations?

This commission sat for three years, admittedly interrupted for a High Court action, following which there was an appeal to the Supreme Court, attempted obstruction by the Pharmaceutical Society. This was overruled and, as I say, the commission eventually sat for a total period of three years. It cost a considerable amount of public money. It interviewed 113 witnesses and disclosed certain very disturbing features in relation to this trade, the main features being that there was a pernicious practice of resale price maintenance exercised by the wholesalers, particularly by the Irish Druggists' Association, in relation to the distribution of medicines and toilet preparations.

There was disclosed that a system of boycott was used in order to enforce the maintenance of a particular price. Membership of the association entailed that the member must give a certain undertaking to the association. The undertaking largely boiled down to this, that he would take 50 per cent. profit on the cost of articles sold by him. Rule 12 disclosed that membership of the association implied adherence to the rules, agreement to adhere strictly to the price condition in the sale of goods and loyalty to members. Page 31 of the commission's report showed that one of the objects of the [851] I.D.A. was “the achievement of the position in which a gross profit margin of 33? per cent. of the selling price (i.e., 50 per cent. on cost) would be accepted as normal or uniform in the trade.”

Up to 1952, the I.D.A. was particularly strict and made it clear in no uncertain terms that these rules must be adhered to, that is, the rules as to resale price maintenance and the profit margins to be taken by chemists in the disposal of these goods. In spite of the fact that the tone has changed in recent years in regard to the exhortation to the members to take nothing less than a certain profit, the rules remain unchanged that the prices shall be binding on all members. As far as I know also, the punishment by the I.D.A. of recalcitrant members or recalcitrant suppliers is still the same. I quote from paragraph 58, page 31, in relation to a circular which was sent around to the members:—

“As the margin of profit is not to the satisfaction of the committee, members are reminded to keep...”

—a particular product—

“...in the background where it will not be seen. Any line that does not show an adequate and fair profit margin...”

that is, 50 per cent. on cost—

“...should not be stocked in any prominent part of a pharmacy where it may be observed by a customer but should rather be stowed away from the eyes of potential customers.”

The commission considered all these restrictive trade practices and it made six or seven very deliberate recommendations which aimed at ending these practices. It must be remembered that the restriction in regard to price maintenance is directed towards medicines for the sick and foods for infants in their first years of life. They recommended that minimum resale price maintenance in respect of toilet preparations and infant foods should be abolished.

Paragraph 86, page 44, says:—

“It would, in the commission's [852] view, be contrary to the public interest that a boycott of a supplier's goods should be instituted by an association or combination of persons because of a supplier's failure to confine goods.... The commission are of opinion that such actions would involve unreasonable restraint of trade and constitute unfair discrimination against the supplier concerned and should be prohibited.”

It prohibited the chemists using the present method of recording by means of a code or otherwise on any medical prescription the prices charged to the customer, a way in which the chemist can ensure that the price is maintained, no matter who dispenses the medicine.

Again, they said that, in the opinion of the commission, a collective arrangement or understanding between the wholesalers relating to the prices to be charged by them is contrary to the public interest in that it involves an unnecessary and unreasonable limitation of free and fair competition, and accordingly it should be prohibited. Now the I.D.A. makes no bones about it. Its function is to maintain these prices—first of all, to get this profit of 50 per cent. on cost and then 33 per cent. and to penalise members, wholesalers, suppliers or chemists, who do not accept its rulings. The members can be fined £50, if they break the rules and fail to charge a certain price for their products.

This rejection by the Minister of the recommendation of a commission is a significant and dangerous departure from the precedents he himself established. The commission sat for three years and gave the whole matter the most meticulous and careful consideration. The Minister, in these days at any rate, appears to be a most fervent believer in the idea of private enterprise in our economic system. He has said on many occasions, and I think he believes it, that it is the best system because, with free competition within the private enterprise system, one gets competitive pricing and, with competitive pricing, the inefficient business in put out of operation and one is left with the most efficient. If the Minister believes that is so, why has he made an exception in this case? [853] Inquiry was made into various other restrictive trade practices—wireless dealers and builders' providers, to name two of them—and fair trading rules were drawn up in respect of them. I understand that was for the benefit of the consumer.

Does this new departure by the Minister represent a change in policy? Does he now no longer believe in free competition and competitive pricing? Does he not realise that if the recommendations of this Fair Trade Commission are ignored, restrictive trade practices will not only persist but will increase, since it will be possible for those who are interested to act with impunity? Can we have a statement from the Minister to-night as to whether or not he intends to maintain this Fair Trade Commission? If he is not prepared to accept their recommendations, should the commission not be wound up, thereby saving the taxpayer the cost of an expensive and elaborate hoax, facade or front?

There is another consideration. One of the important functions of this Fair Trade Commission is that witnesses come forward to give evidence and assist the commission. If people are permitted to carry on restrictive trade practices and there is fear of penalty and punitive measures of one kind or another, such as have been clearly disclosed in this commission's report, witnesses will be victimised in future and the effectiveness of the Fair Trade Commission will be completely negatived. I can give the Minister one well-documented case of this having happened already in relation to the particular inquiry about which I am speaking. There is certainly a prima facie case for believing that one individual has been victimised because of the evidence he gave before the commission.

Mr. Loughman:  Will the Deputy tell us who the man is?

Dr. Browne:  I shall tell the Deputy privately. I hope he will be able to do something about it. This is a most important branch of our economy. It is a branch in which a certain section of our people is rendered particularly vulnerable—mothers, infants and the sick. [854] Surely the Minister cannot remain callously indifferent to the effects of these restrictive trade practices. Is he not aware that if he permits these restrictive practices to continue in this instance, the natural corollary is that such practices will spread into other parts of our economy? Indeed, the arguments the Minister has so eloquently advanced over the years in support of the benefits and merits of a private enterprise economy will be completely frustrated and rendered absolutely futile.

I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter. It seems absurd that he should ask the commission to reconsider it inasmuch as he has rejected the recommendations of a commission.

An Ceann Comhairle:  Is the Deputy mindful of the clock?

Dr. Browne:  There is only one further point. The Minister mentioned that it is possible for the commission to make fair trading rules. Will the Minister say if these rules will be binding to the same extent as an Order? It is a most retrograde step on the part of the Minister to reject these recommendations and his rejection will have a most deleterious effect on many people, not only in this trade but in other trades as well because of iniquitous and pernicious restrictive trade practices widespread throughout the country.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. S. Lemass):  With regard to the provision of the Act which requires that a statement of intention should be submitted to the Dáil within three months of the submission of the report, my predecessor must make his own defence, if he thinks that necessary, as to why he did not do so. We are all aware that his Government were in certain political difficulties for part of the time and fighting a general election for the rest of the time. I came into office on the 20th March. The statutory period within which a statement should be made to the Dáil expired on the 29th March. By the 29th March I had not even read the commission's report. When I did read it I decided an Order as recommended by the commission was not necessary. I think it [855] would be ridiculous to allow myself to be coerced by such rule of procedure into making an Order I did not think was needed.

I read the report carefully and objectively. I think Deputy Dr. Browne read it carefully but not quite so objectively. I decided, as I said in the statement submitted to the Dáil, that the making of an Order such as recommended by the commission would not entail any marked alteration in the manner in which the trade was carried on. I want the significance of these words to be appreciated. My conclusion on reading the report was that the Order, if made, would have no practical effect. That is why I decided not to make an Order. There was no question of any change of policy. As a general principle, in my view, laws to regulate the conduct of any trade should not be made except where there is clearly and obviously a necessity for them. I am disposed against State regulation in any trade. I certainly do not believe in enacting legislation to provide for State interference in commercial operations just because there is a pretext for doing so. In this case I do not think there was even a good pretext.

What evidence should the Fair Trade Commission seek when proving that there are undesirable restrictive practices in operation? It should, I think, seek to show that excessive profits were being made; that contrary to the public interest there were efforts to limit the number of retail outlets or to confine trade to members of a particular association either wholesalers or retailers; or it should seek to show that contrary to the public interest there was resale price maintenance in operation.

Let us see what the commission said about these matters. As far as profits are concerned, on page 42 the commission states:—

“The net profits earned on the average are moderate having regard to the chemist professional training.”

As far as the confining of outlets so far as medicinal preparations are concerned, the commission says:—

[856]“It may be accepted that the sale of preparations of this kind outside the chemist trade could be undesirable from the standpoint of public health.”

As far as confining the sale of non-medicinal preparations normally purchased from chemists is concerned, the commission says:—

“The policy of the I.D.A. does not appear to have been very effective as far as the bulk of toilet preparations are concerned; many of the principal manufacturers of these goods do not confine distribution to chemists.”

As far as resale price maintenance is concerned, the commission says on page 45:—

“The commission consider that resale price maintenance by the individual manufacturer should be permitted in respect of proprietary medical preparations and that, acting solely on his own initiative, he should be permitted to withhold supplies, if this course is necessary, for the purpose of maintaining wholesale and retail prices for his proprietary medical preparations.”

The commission stated that it was undesirable that there should be collective action to enforce resale price maintenance but in fact they said no coercive collective action was taken by the organisation. It is true, as Deputy Dr. Browne stated, that the organisation circulates a list of suggested prices to their members. In that regard the commission says on page 48:—

“There is justification for price lists as a guide to retail chemists, provided that, where pricing is done by retail association, the prices are expressly stated to be suggested prices, and that efforts are not made to enforce them as minimum prices.”

Those are my reasons for deciding that an Order was not necessary. In respect of all the matters regarding which the commission were seeking evidence of the existence of restrictive practices which were contrary to the public interest, they found in fact that they did not operate to any serious [857] extent and therefore I decided that the making of an Order as recommended by them would not alter the present practices in this trade in any important respect. I recognise that the making of an Order might have beneficial consequences in so far as it would operate to prevent the emergence of undesirable restrictive practices at some future date.

Deputy Dr. Browne is quite wrong in saying that as a result of my decision chemists can now embark on such restrictive practices with impunity. I made it quite clear in my statement to the Dáil that the Fair Trade Commission will keep the position in this trade under review; that they will make fair trading rules in respect of any class of goods dealt with by chemists if the need for them should be established and they will hold another inquiry if circumstances should appear to require it. The effect of making fair trading rules is not to put statutory authority behind these rules, but it does open up a procedure by which, on there being evidence that the rules are not being kept in the trade, an Order can be made giving them statutory effect without a formal official inquiry.

I do not propose to wind up the [858] commission. I think it has done a great deal of useful work directly and indirectly and that it has more useful work to do in the future. I do not think my decision on this recommendation of theirs has in any way impaired their utility. I want to make it quite clear, however, that at all times responsibility for the submission of proposals for legislation to the Oireachtas rests with the Government and does not rest with this commission or any other commission. While the Government will always give full weight to the recommendations of a body of this kind which has carried out an exhaustive inquiry, it does not necessarily mean we must automatically act on recommendations contrary to our own judgment. I will admit that there must be a predisposition towards accepting their recommendations but the final decision must in all circumstances rest with the Government.

Deputy Loughman rose.

An Ceann Comhairle:  The Deputy may ask a question only.

Mr. Loughman:  Only a question?

The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 21st November.

Mr. Norton:  asked the Taoiseach if he will indicate as far as possible, at [729] current national retail prices, the estimated cost per diet-head per week of each of the food items listed in Table 3, in each case, of Parts IV and V of the National Nutrition Survey in respect of (a) farming families, and (b) farm workers' families.

The Taoiseach:  The following table shows the estimated values at the national average retail prices ruling in mid-August, 1957 (the latest date for which the information is available) of the quantities of food listed in Table 3 (page 18) of Part IV and Table 3 (page 16) of Part V of the National Nutrition Survey, 1946-48 in respect of (a) farming families and (b) farm workers' families. Comparable prices are not available from the Consumer Price [730] Index for all the items referred to in the nutrition survey, but the items for which estimates have been made account (at 1946-48 prices) for all but 1/9½d of the total expenditure of 17/- per diet-head per week m farming families and all but 8½d. of the total expenditure of 11/5 per diet-head per week in farm workers' families as estimated in Table 4A of Part IV and Table 4A of Part V of the survey.

It must be emphasised that the prices used are those for retail purchases in shops and that much of the dietary of both farming families and farm workers' families is not purchased retail but represents the direct consumption of agricultural produce without any sale process.

Estimated values at the national average retail prices ruling in mid-August, 1957, of the quantities of food listed in Table 3 of Part IV and Table 3 of Part V of the National Nutrition Survey, 1946-48.

Commodity (a) Farming Families (b)Farm Workers' Families Notes on items in the Consumer Price Index (C.P.I.) used to estimate values shown
Bought and Free Home Won Total Bought and Free Home Won Total
d. d. d. d. d. d.
Butter 17.50 15.33 32.83 21.38 0.81 22.19 Bought and free= Creamery butter; Home won=Farmers butter.
Margarine 0.99 0.99 1.98 1.98
Other fats 0.51 0.51 0.77 0.77 Lard.
Sugar 5.45 5.45 5.64 5.64 White granulated sugar.
Preserves 5.63 0.13 5.76 6.25 6.25 Strawberry jam; mixed fruit jam; and marmalade.
Syrup and treacle Not available.
Milk liquid, milk whole condensed and milk whole dried 1.09 37.47 38.56 17.38 4.89 22.27 Fresh milk only.
Skimmed milk and buttermilk and Skimmed condensed milk Not available.
Cheese 1.30 1.30 1.94 1.94
Eggs 1.83 27.42 29.25 5.94 9.14 15.08 1st grade, hen eggs.
Beef and veal 26.56 0.23 26.79 24.05 24.05 Five cuts of beef, weighted as in C.P.I.
Mutton and lamb 7.56 7.56 3.02 3.02 Five cuts of mutton weighted as in C.P.I.
Pork 1.03 0.26 1.29 0.26 0.26 Fresh pork, shoulder.
Corned beef, mutton or pork 1.31 1.31 2.63 2.63 Corned brisket beef.
Bacon 9.73 19.74 29.47 6.39 0.56 6.95 Five cuts weighted as in C.P.I.
Liver, sheep Not available.
Liver, other 0.19 0.19 0.37 0.37 Beef liver.
Other offals Not available.
Cooked and canned meat 2.19 2.19 3.28 3.28 Cooked ham.
Sausages, uncooked 4.60 4.60 6.48 6.48 Pork sausages.
Other meat products Not available.
White fish 0.94 0.16 1.10 0.79 0.79 Whiting and cod steak weighted as in C.P.I.
White fish processed Not available.
Fat fish, fresh 0.98 0.20 1.18 0.39 0.39 Herrings.
Fat fish, processed Not available.
Fish, canned 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 Salmon.
[731][732]Potatoes, unpeeled, peeled and chips 1.17 28.12 29.29 7.07 17.01 24.08 Unpeeled potatoes only
Carrots 0.10 0.70 0.80 0.15 0.40 0.55
Other roots Not available.
Green vegetables Not available.
Miscellaneous vegetables 0.83 0.94 1.77 1.48 0.53 2.01 Onions.
Legumes, fresh Not available.
Pulses,dried 0.38 0.38 0.28 0.28 Peas.
Pulses, canned Not available.
Tomatoes 0.97 0.97 0.65 0.65
Citrus fruits 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 Oranges.
Other fruits 0.46 1.53 1.99 0.71 0.20 0.91 Cooking apples.
Bottled and canned fruit 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.00 Pears.
Dried vine fruit 1.14 1.14 0.99 0.99 Sultanas.
Other dried fruit Not available.
Flour 21.57 0.08 21.65 15.02 15.02
Whole meal Not available.
Maize meal Not available.
Bread 15.62 0.42 16.04 20.08 0.04 20.12
Biscuits (incl. wafers, excl. oatmeal biscuits) 1.80 1.80 0.80 0.80
Cakes 1.30 1.30 0.56 0.56
Puddings Not available.
Oatmeal and oat products 3.22 0.83 4.05 2.07 2.07
Breakfast cereals Not available.
Cereals (rice and barley) 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.00 Rice only.
Cereals (flour base) 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Semolina.
Other cereals Not available.
Cocoa and cocoa based drinks 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 Cocoa powder.
Patent drinks and foods Not available.
TOTAL of items for which estimated values are shown above 139.90 133.56 273.46 160.47 33.58 194.05