Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 4 Jun 1925

Vol. 12 No. 3

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE 29.—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE.

I move

Go ndeontar suim na raghaidh thar £26,653 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1926, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Dlí agus Cirt.

That a sum not exceeding £26,653 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Justice.

The reduction, of £1,200 in the Estimate as compared with last year, is mainly accounted for under sub-head (a, a)—Film Censorship—in which there is a reduction of £1,032. I will refer to that in detail. Taking sub-head (a)—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—the sum of £670 is provided for the administration of the Aliens' Restriction Act. That is made up as follows:—There is an immigration officer at Cobh, who gets an inclusive salary of £370. There is a provision of £300 for payment of a deputy, for extra assistance during the summer months and for incidentals. Deputies might wish to have a resumé of the duties and responsibilities of immigration officers.

All aliens coming from abroad (i.e., from outside the Saorstát or Great Britain or Northern Ireland) and wishing to land in Saorstát Eireann must receive permission to do so from an immigration officer. On the immigration officer rests the full responsibility for seeing that no undesirable alien is permitted to land, and to that effect each alien landing has to be carefully examined. The routine for the landing and examination of aliens is as follows:—The immigration officer boards the arriving vessel before anyone has left it and is supplied with the passenger manifest. All passengers desiring to land, Irish, British and aliens, are then examined by him. He has nothing to do as regards passengers listed as Irish and British except to see that their nationality is genuine and that they are not aliens in possession of forged passports. Aliens must be in possession of passports, duly viséd when necessary. The immigration officer is empowered to refuse leave to land to any alien who is not in a position to support himself and his dependents; if coming to take up employment has not a permit from the Ministry of Industry and Commerce; is a lunatic, idiot or mentally deficient; has been certified for medical reasons to be unfit to land; has been sentenced in a foreign country for any crime within the meaning of the Extradition Acts, 1870-1906; is the subject of a Deportation or an Expulsion Order in force; has been prohibited from landing by the Minister for Justice. On the immigration officer rests the responsibility of deciding in doubtful cases whether a person is of Irish or British nationality or is an alien. Exhaustive instructions have been issued on this point for the guidance of immigration officers.

All aliens on the ship must complete landing cards, which must be checked by the immigration officer and, if leave to land is granted, endorsed as to the conditions of landing and forwarded to the Aliens' Branch of the Department of Justice. If an alien is refused to land a special form must be completed by the immigration officer and copies served on the alien, the master of the ship, Aliens' Branch, and a copy retained at the port. In all cases the immigration officer must endorse his decision on the passport (or other nationality papers) of the alien.

An alien who is refused leave to land must be returned on the ship on which he came. If this is inconvenient he may, with the leave of an immigration officer, be placed on shore and detained temporarily until it becomes possible to send him back. Whilst so detained he is deemed to be in legal custody.

An immigration officer must compile and keep statistics of the alien traffic at his port, which he forwards monthly in the form of a return to the Aliens' Branch of the Department of Justice. He must also furnish detailed reports on special cases. It is usual for him to keep in touch with the general progress of public affairs, trade and commerce at his port and to report to the Ministry thereon.

During the year ended the 31st March, 1925, 6,302 alien passengers arrived at the Port of Cobh, and 5,976 departed therefrom, while for the same period the respective figures for the Port of Moville were 1,554 and 1,314. During last year only three aliens were refused leave to land. Of these, two were seamen, but, of course, many of the passengers arriving were only allowed to land on time conditions. That is, they had business to transact in the country and were allowed to land and remain in the country for a limited period. There was an increase in the number of American visitors.

An allowance of £50 is provided for an inspector under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876. The principal duty of the vivisection inspector is the examination of applications for licences and certificates under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876. It is only when the inspector recommends that the applicant is a fit and proper person to experiment on living animals, and that the experiments are necessary in the interests of science, that licences are issued. The inspector also limits the number of animals to be experimented on, and may specify the kind of animal. It is also the duty of the inspector to see that no unnecessary cruelty is inflicted on the animals used for the experiments.

The amounts provided for the Accounts Branch may seem large, but it must be remembered that this staff deals not alone with the accounting side of this particular Vote but also of the Gárda Síochána and District Court Votes. The centralised system of payment adapted for the Gárda Síochána has proved entirely satisfactory. All payments arising out of the activities of the force are made by the Accounts Staff provided for under this Vote and the local officers of the Force, already fully occupied with their police duties, are thus relieved of a considerable amount of detailed clerical and financial work, for which they could ill afford the attention required.

As to sub-head (a, a)—"Film Censorship"—the financial arrangements in connection with the censorship of films are now on a completely new basis. Last year a contract was entered into with the Irish Bonded Film Store, Ltd., for the exhibition of films for censorship purposes at a rate of ten shillings per thousand feet. That contract expired in February last, and at that time we took the decision that the department itself should undertake the work of showing the films. Premises were accordingly taken in Molesworth Street, and the necessary machinery has been installed. The estimate shows that we hope to carry out the work at a considerable saving as compared with last year's cost. Owing to the increased volume of work and responsibilities attaching to the office, the censor's salary has now been fixed at £600 per annum. The wages paid to the operators are at the trade union rates for this trade. The figure of £932 —cost of showing films—is made up as follows:—£260 for electric power, which might be reduced considerably in the near future under the operations of the Shannon scheme; depreciation, renewals, etc., £100; rent and insurance, £250; light and heat, £50; cleaning, £100; telephones, telegrams, stationery, and all incidentals, £163.

The Censorship of Films Act, under which we are operating, provides that these fees shall be fixed in such a manner as to meet the expenses of the censorship and no more. It has, therefore, been arranged to pass on the saving effected under the new arrangement to the trade, and an order was made on 5th February last reducing the charge for "interest" films from one-tenth of a penny to three-fiftieth of a penny per foot, and reducing the charge for other films from one-fifth of a penny to three-twenty-fifth of a penny per foot. Deputies will, of course, understand that this branch of the department is not strictly a charge on public funds, that it pays for itself on the fees, and the fees are fixed as nearly as possible simply to bear the expense of the censorship operation, and no more than that.

What is a "wind boy, temporary?"

He is the boy that turns the handle that winds up the films. Sub-head (e) deals with the expenses of winding up the affairs of the late Dail Eireánn Courts. Certain miscellaneous debts arising out of that period and out of that court system have been gradually cleared off, and at the moment only a very small number of claims of that kind remain to be dealt with. These are classified as follows:—Costs due to solicitors who acted in those courts; arrears of remuneration to district registrars; claims for escort and conveyance of prisoners and their maintenance while in custody; minor expenses of courts, such as rents, lighting, stationery, etc.

The Minister leaves us very few questions to ask, because he makes such a full statement, but I should like to call attention to the increase in the numbers of the staffs under sub-head (a), not only with reference to this Estimate but with general reference. I want to discover what steps are being taken to standardise the Civil Service and whether there is going to be an increase in this Department from sixty-six to seventysix. There have been, as we know, increases of staff in other departments. Can we take it that no definite establishments are yet fixed for the various Government Departments? How far is it open to a Minister to demand increases of staff? I presume he has to have the sanction of the Department of Finance, but possibly even more detailed machinery might be necessary or desirable, because there is a tendency— it is a very natural tendency—in every office which believes it is doing important work to magnify its importance and the necessity for an additional staff to deal with it. Some effective check must be devised if the Civil Service is not to grow out of all bounds. The Department of Finance is, or should be, that check, but judging from the general trend of the Estimates I have some doubts whether that check is being fully exercised. I am sorry the Minister for Finance is not here, because this point bears as much on him as on the Minister for Justice, but I should like to get some idea of what justification there is for this particular increase in any event.

Under sub-head (a)—"Allowances for Inspection under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876"—I want to ask the Minister if he can tell me who is responsible for removing injured animals from the street when run over by a motor or otherwise injured, and also for dealing with starving dogs, that are now very numerous about the streets. In the Phoenix Park the other day I saw a dog, very much injured, lying on the middle of the road. It was a danger to motor and other traffic. I had great difficulty in getting anybody to take any interest in its removal. Finally I spoke to a policeman at a considerable distance away, but he said it was no part of his duty to see to it. There are also complaints from many people of starving dogs going around, having been thrown out by their owners. Something ought to be done to stop that kind of thing. At any rate they should be put out of misery as soon as possible by some recognised authority that the public should know where to find. That is a matter that does not seem to be clear at present.

I would also like to ask if this inspector of cruelty to animals has power to go over places where vivisection is carried out. I am sorry to say that vivisection is necessary. I have a very great horror of it, but I am afraid, for certain classes of animals, we must consent to this very horrible necessity. At any rate, I think the higher animals ought to be exempt from it, and in that class I put dogs. Dogs are essentially the friend of man, and I think we ought to use all our influence to prevent them suffering most horrible agony that no doubt in many cases is inflicted under the guise of science. I have a very great horror of the whole thing.

What about cock-fighting?

That is nothing to be compared with vivisection, keeping animals for months in agony. I think such a thing should not be allowed. It certainly should be kept under strict control, and if not it may lead to awful cruelty. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us what is being done to keep this horrible necessity under control.

Deputy Cooper referred to an increase of ten in the staff of the Department, and inquired generally about the question of standardisation in the Civil Service. I would prefer, if that general question were to be raised, that the Minister for Finance would deal with it, the Civil Service being controlled by the establishments branch of his Department. Answering for the increase from 66 to 76, I would account for it, perhaps, in this way. The Department has been a growing Department in the sphere of its duties. If I might simply cite one instance, the distribution of the police, which has now almost reached its full maximum, that has been going on gradually since September or October, 1922. It involved increased demands on the Department generally, and in particular on the Accounts Branch, where the Deputy will note one substantial increase. There is an increase from 7 to 14 in the lower clerical officers employed in the Accounts Branch. Of course we take on no additional staff without sanction of the Minister for Finance, and without having made our case to his satisfaction for such extra staff. The Establishment Branch of this Department specialises in staff matters, and I can assure the Deputy it is a tough proposition to get sanction for additional staff, even when you have a very strong case.

If there were a tendency in the Department of Finance to stereotype the Civil Service and stereotype the staffs of the Department as they are at present, I would certainly be very much opposed to that course. One has not reached a stage, I think, where you can say that your Department is dealing, as well as you could wish, with the full sphere of its responsibilities, that you could take up the position that no increase of staff would be likely to be required. All the Departments are, perhaps, not just in the same position, but, speaking for my own Department and my own sphere of responsibility, I could not say that even this increase of 10 over last year's estimate represents all that would be required when we are in a position to know just every matter we will be called upon to deal with and the extent of the demands.

Deputy Wolfe must not have heard me saying that one part of the duties of the officer appointed under the Vivisection Act is to see that no unnecessary cruelty is inflicted in the performance of these operations. As to the removal of animals from the streets, I am not quite sure what the position is. I think if an animal dies in a public place, and if no citizen has attended to the matter, the duty devolves on the relieving officer of the area. He receives, I think, some small payment for any work he has to undertake in that connection. If a horse or a donkey dies on the side of the road, I think, in the absence of anyone else to attend to it, it is the responsibility of the relieving officer of the area.

In the case of an injured animal, is there any place it can be taken and destroyed?

I suggest to the Minister that it would be the duty of the sub-sanitary officer.

It would be within the province of the police to attend to wounded animals on their beat, or if found in the area of their duty. They are furnished with revolvers for use, I think, when an animal is so badly hurt that it has to be killed. Another pretty definite duty, of course, on the part of the police is to bring straying animals, or any animals found in the condition stated by Deputy Wolfe, to the Dogs' Home, where they are either cared for or destroyed in a humane way.

I am glad to know it is the duty of the police, because I was doubtful on whom the duty lay.

As to vivisection and the point that it ought not to be practised on higher animals, in which the Deputy includes dogs, I do not know in fact whether dogs are or are not used in these operations. My impression is that they are not.

I am afraid they were.

Throughout the year the Deputy has given a lot of time and attention to the question of having dogs drowned or poisoned three months earlier than is generally the case, and I was rather surprised that that particular appeal should come from him.

I do not quite understand what the Minister means.

In his opening statement the Minister explained fully the duties of the Aliens' Restriction Officer. I am pleased that the discussion of this Vote has not prompted any Deputy to join in the scare being created in England and throughout Europe in regard to the passage of undesirable aliens from one country to another. Only last week an opportunity was afforded the Home Secretary in the British House of Commons to make some reference to the position in regard to the Irish Free State and the possibility of what were deemed to be undesirable aliens entering England via the Free State. I think every Deputy here has had some experience and some knowledge of how scares in respect to alleged political crime and offences, or fears of political crime and offences, were created in the past in relation to Irish political movements. The same thing appears to be in operation at the present time in England and in other countries in Europe. I think the Minister might tell us whether any special arrangements have been sought, or have been acceded to him in consultation with, or in combination with, the British Home Office in respect to persons who desire to come into this country, or who may desire to go from this country into England. I think that, in view of all that is being said, we should give the Minister an opportunity, and he should avail of that opportunity, of showing that he, at any rate, is not being caught up in this rather ridiculous anti-Bolshevist scare at the present time.

I do not think there has been any special contact or consultation on that question.

Perhaps I should have said that the Minister for Home Affairs in England indicated in almost so many words that he had communicated, after the question being raised about the Irish Free State, with this country, and that he had made all the necessary arrangements to prevent that possibility. I want the Minister to say that that was not a direct communication in this regard to himself.

The Deputy will understand that there are no passport regulations as between this country and England. Consequently a person landing in England can come freely here, and a person landing here can go there without the necessity of procuring a passport. From time to time there have been exchanges on the question of particular individuals considered undesirable. Short of a passport arrangement, some kind of reciprocity of that nature would be necessary, so that a person considered undesirable there would not be admitted here or, if admitted to this country, would be admitted to it only and would not be allowed to travel to England. That would be a condition of his landing. On the general question, there has been no very definite exchange of views that I am aware of, and no suggestions have been made. I do not think the Deputy need anticipate that there will be any unreasonable restrictions on foreigners visiting this country.

Do I understand from the Minister that in view of the absence of passport obligations, if the British Ministry indicates that a particular person, John Smith or Johann Schmidt, should not be allowed access into England, that would prevent the landing in Ireland of the same person?

No, not exactly. It might. We would form our own opinion, and conceivably we would allow landing with the condition attached that he would remain in the country or, at any rate, that he would not make use of the fact that he had been allowed to land in the country to proceed to England, where the authorities considered him undesirable. I would not accept the position that a person deemed undesirable in England for any reason is automatically and ipso facto undesirable here and should not be allowed to land. If, however, it were represented to us by the British authorities that a named individual was undesirable to them, then if we decided to allow that person to land here we would do so on condition that he would not leave the country, at least not for England.

Is that a reciprocal arrangement?

I would like to make a suggestion arising out of the question of the Film Censor. We are aware there is an income from this undertaking, and we are aware the income would be found if we make a search into certain annual accounts for the previous year. May I suggest, apart from any departure from the present method, which is a matter, perhaps, for consideration by other Departments, that the estimate of the income for the coming year should in future be placed as a footnote on this page?

Yes. Would you refer to the footnote on page 100.

I am sorry; I missed that.

I missed that, too.

Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share