Joint Committee on Standing Orders. - Appropriation (No. 2) Bill, 1943—Certified Money Bill)—Second Stage. – Seanad Éireann (4th Seanad) – Wednesday, 24 Nov 1943

Joint Committee on Standing Orders. - Appropriation (No. 2) Bill, 1943—Certified Money Bill)—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

An tAire Airgeadais (Seán T. Ó Ceallaigh)

Ba mhaith liom ar dtúis féachaint le míniú a thabhairt, ar mhaithe leis na Seanadóirí nua inár measc, ar an tslí ina ndeonann an tOireachtas airgead do na seirbhísí atá á stiúrú ag na Ranna Stáit agus ar a dtugtar go minic na seirbhísí soláthair. I ndeire Feabhra no i dtús Márta gach bliain deintear Imleabhar Meastachán don bhliain airgeadais dar tús an chéad lá d'Abrán a thíolacadh don Dáil. Scrúduíonn an Dáil na Meastacháin sin do réir mar bhíonn caoí aca, agus de ghnáth bíd go léir scrúduithe roimh shaoire an tsamhraidh. I dtreo go mbeidh airgead ann chun na seirbhísí a choimeád ar siúl fhaid is tá na Meastacháin á bplé, ámhthach, deineann an Dáil suim i gcúntas a vótáil i mí Mhárta. Cuireann an tAire Airgeadais Páipéar Bán timpeall, ar a nainmnítear na seirbhísí go bhfuil airgead ag teastáil uaidh ina gcóir, agus iarrann sé cnapshuim is leor, de ghnáth, do cheithre míosa. Ní féidir airgead d'fháil ón bPrímh-Chiste ar údarás Vóta i gCúntas, ámhthach; is gá Acht chuige sin. Tugtar isteach Bille Prímh-Chiste, dá réir, chun gur féidir méid an Vóta i gCúntas a thabhairt amach as an bPrímh-Chiste. Ní leagtar síos sa mBille sin na seirbhísí go bhfuil an t-airgead le caitheamh ortha.

Ní dleathach airgead a thabhairt amach ná a chaitheamh ar aontú le Meastachán ach oiread le Vóta i gCúntas, agus ní foláir an deontas a dheimhniú tré reachtas. Nuair ata aontuithe ag an Dáil leis na Meastacháin go léir, mar sin, tugann an tAire Airgeadais isteach Bille Leithreasa go bhfuil dhá phríomh-chuspóir aige: sa chéad áit, a údarú go dtabharfaí amach as an bPrímh-Chiste an fearasbárr atá ag teastáil do na seirbhísí, soláthair, sé sin, méid iomlán na Meastachán don bhliain lughaide méid an Vóta i gCúntas, gur údaruíodh cheana é thabhairt amach: agus sa tarna háit, a leagadh síos go dleathach cé na seirbhísí gur ceaduithe an t-iomlán a tugtar amach a chaitheamh ortha, agus cén tsuim is ceaduithe a chaiteamh ar gach ceann díobh; riantar na seirbhísí agus na suimeanna sin i Sceideal don Acht, a bhíonn, dá réir, mar threoir ag an Árd-Reachtaire Cunntas agus Ciste agus é ag scrúdú cúntaisí féachaint an bhfuil airgead poiblí á chaitheamh mar ba thoil leis an Oireachtas nuair deonadh é. Tugtar "leithreasú" ar shuimeanna cinnte airgid a chur ar leath-taobh mar seo chun crícheanna áirithe a luaitear. Tagann Billí Leithreasa agus Billí Prímh-Chiste ós cóir an tSeanaid sa ghnáth-shlí tréis don Dáil iad a rith, ach ní féidir iad a leasú annsin, ar ndóigh, mar gur Billí Airgid iad.

I should like at the outset to attempt to explain in simple terms for the benefit of new members the stages in the granting by the Oireachtas of money for the services administered by the various Departments of State and known as the Supply Services.

In late February or early March each year a Volume of Estimates of the money required for the various services for the financial year beginning on the following 1st April is presented to the Dáil. These Estimates are considered by the Dáil as opportunity offers and are normally disposed of before the summer recess. In order, however, that there may be money available to carry on the services during the period the Estimates are being debated, a sum on account is voted by the Dáil in March. The Minister for Finance circulates a White Paper detailing the services on which he proposes to spend money, and asks for a lump sum sufficient, usually, to carry them on for four months. The passing of this Vote on Account does not, however, authorise the issue of money out of the Central Fund, which can only be done by legislation. A Central Fund Bill is therefore introduced to enable the amount of the Vote on Account to be issued from the Central Fund; this Bill does not prescribe the nature of the services on which the money is to be spent.

The passing of Estimates by the Dáil, like the passing of a Vote on Account does not legalise the issue or spending of money, and the grants made must be confirmed by legislation. When all the Estimates have been agreed to, therefore, the Minister for Finance introduces an Appropriation Bill, which has two main purposes: firstly, to authorise the issue out of the Central Fund of the remaining sum required for the Supply Services, that is, the total sum estimated for the year, less the amount of the Vote on Account already authorised to be issued: and secondly, to prescribe legally the several services (each with the amount of its grant) on which the total amount issued may be spent; those services and grants are set out in a Schedule to the Act, which is, therefore, the headline by reference to which the Comptroller and Auditor-General scrutinises accounts to see whether public moneys are being spent in accordance with the wishes of the Oireachtas. This process of setting aside definite sums of money to be spent on specified purposes is known as "appropriation." Both the Appropriation and Central Fund Bills come before the Seanad in the normal way when passed by the Dáil, though, being Money Bills, they cannot be amended here.

The Volume of Estimates presented to the Dáil each year is intended to cover the whole of the financial year commencing on the following 1st April, but, as it is prepared so long in advance, it is usually necessary to introduce Supplementary Estimates for some of the services during the financial year. As in the case of a main Estimate, a Supplementary Estimate does not of itself authorise the issue or spending of money, and must be supported by legislation. Supplementary Estimates passed between the beginning of the financial year and the introduction of the Appropriation Bill in June or July are covered by that Bill, which both authorises the issue of and appropriates the money required. Supplementary Estimates passed after the Appropriation Bill are normally covered as regards issuing from the Central Fund by the Central Fund Bill passed at the end of the year and, as regards appropriation, by the Appropriation Bill of the following year.

To summarise the position, the normal procedure is that a Vote on Account for four months is passed by the Dáil in March, and issue from the Central Fund of the sum required is authorised by the Central Fund Act, which also authorises the issue of the amounts of any Supplementary Estimates passed since the last Appropriation Act; the main Estimates are passed by the Dáil at their leisure, and then the balance required is authorised to be issued from the Central Fund and the whole allocated among the various services by the Appropriation Act which is introduced in June or July; this Act also authorises the issue of the amounts of any Supplementary Estimates passed since the Central Fund Act, and appropriates the amounts of all Supplementaries passed since the Appropriation Act of the previous year. Both Acts, incidentally, confer borrowing powers on the Minister, and the Appropriation Act, in addition, authorises certain Departmental receipts to be appropriated in aid of Departmental expenditure.

In a normal year, therefore, the work of the Oireachtas in connection with the main Estimates finishes with the Appropriation Bill in June or July, and there is no need for a second Appropriation Bill such as that which I am placing before you to-day. This year, however, the Dáil adjourned much earlier than usual owing to the Dissolution, and before doing so passed only 29 of the 73 Estimates presented to them. Those 29 Estimates were covered by the Appropriation Bill which became law last June. When the new Dáil met in July, a second Vote on Account was passed for the services provided out of the remaining 44 Estimates, and a second Central Fund Bill was enacted to authorise the issue of the sum from the Central Fund. Those Estimates, which comprised the Finance, Agriculture, Local Government and Public Health, Posts and Telegraphs, Army and External Affairs groups, have now been considered in detail by the Dáil and agreed to, and all that remains to be done in connection with this year's main Estimates is to enact a second Appropriation Bill, to authorise the issue out of the Central Fund of the balance required for the 44 Estimates and to appropriate that sum together with the amount of the second Vote on Account.

As to the individual sections and Schedules of the Bill now before you, Section 1 provides for the issue out of the Central Fund of £9,183,680. This is the balance required for the 44 Estimates I have mentioned. Together with the sums of £13,820,000, £9,551,899 and £8,423,000 authorised to be issued under the Central Fund Act, 1943, the Appropriation Act, 1943, and the Central Fund (No. 2) Act, 1943, respectively, it represents the total amount estimated to be required for the Supply Services for the current financial year, excluding the totals of two Supplementary Estimates (£24,500 for Agriculture and £123,000 for Local Government and Public Health) recently agreed to, and such extra Supplementary Estimates as may later be introduced. The position may be summarised thus: Amount appearing on face of Estimates Volume, £40,696,211; add Supplementary Estimates, £282,368. Total required for Supply Services for current financial year, £40,978,579. After the various sums already authorised to be issued have been allowed for, the balance to be provided is £9,183,680.

Section 2 empowers the Minister to borrow up to the amount proposed to be issued from the Central Fund, and to issue such securities as he thinks fit for the purpose of such borrowing. Section 3 appropriates to the various services set out in Schedule (B) the total of the amounts authorised to be issued out of the Central Fund under Section 1 of this Bill, and under the Central Fund (No. 2) Act, 1943. Section 4 gives the Bill its short title. Schedule (A) gives particulars of the issues out of the Central Fund authorised by Section 1 of this Bill, and by the Central Fund (No. 2) Act, 1943. Schedule (B) sets out in detail the specific services to which the sums so issued are to be appropriated.

Cathaoirleach

The subject matters of which notice has been given will now be taken up, commencing with the Department of Defence.

Mr. Sweetman

As the first Senator to speak in this House to-day, I would like to take the opportunity of saying that we are glad that the Minister for Finance has fully recovered, and to congratulate him on that recovery from his recent illness.

Senators

Hear, hear.

Mr. Sweetman

As everyone in this House is aware, so far as Army services are concerned, pay, particularly in the specialist services, is dependent on two things. It is dependent in the first case on the man's rank, and in the second case on the number of years he has been established in that rank. Some considerable time ago, when the Army was being established, and when things had got into an even swing, a regular scale of pay was laid down for specialist officers, and as a result of the fixing of that scale of pay, many men decided they would make the Army their career and would remain in its service rather than take the terms offered to them at the time to go out. They did that on the basis of the scales that were before them at the time, because on looking down the lists they were able to see that after a certain period of years, if they worked well and carried on their jobs, they would be certain of promotion and increased emoluments. Then, in 1938, under the Defence Force regulations, the whole system was changed. The rates of pay and allowances which were to be permitted, particularly to the special services—and this is the matter to which I want to call the attention of the House—were altered.

Prior to the 1st December, 1938, certain rates were fixed for officers in the Army Medical Service. Those officers, so long as they remained in their then position, did not have their scales changed but if they happened to be promoted, then it meant that they were to come under the new regulations rather than under the old regulations. As a result of the change in the regulations, a man who, prior to 1st December, 1938, had been a lieutenant in the Army Medical Service for five years, not only must be promoted a captain and not only must serve two years as captain but must serve five years as captain and must, in addition, be promoted to be a commandant before he gets any increase in emoluments. The new scheme means that a man gets promotion without pay. The same thing is effective so far as a person who was a captain with five years' service in 1938 is concerned. He can go through all the three stages of his captaincy and still get no increase in his emoluments. If the person was then a commandant with five years' service, he cannot, as the regulations now stand, hope to receive any increase in emoluments. It is unfair, half-way through a man's career, to change the terms on which he was asked to stay in the service of the State. The same thing happens in regard to certain other special services, the veterinary and dental services, and, though not to the same degree by any means, to the legal offices.

Another question arises: under the present rates, provided for by regulation, shall we get the very best medical and dental advice—which we should get—for the Army? I am told that the present rates are considered so bad that we are not getting the type and class of doctor to come into the Army Medical Service which we should have a right to expect. I am told, too, that, during the past two years, there has been an unprecedented number of resignations or applications for discharge—I am not sure which is the proper technical way of describing it. People who came in during the emergency, perhaps when things looked very black, feel that they cannot, in their own interest, continue to go on at the scales of pay provided. In many instances, they have been asking to be released from their Army contracts so that they may go out and take up civil employment. No doubt, the Minister will be able to tell us whether or not my information is correct and whether there are not at present certain posts in the specialist services—particularly in the Army Medical Service—vacant by reason of the fact that men cannot be got with the proper qualifications to fill these posts.

Apart from that, I think that to change, halfway through a man's career, his terms of office, is a breach of faith which we should not countenance. I believe that there was recently in the organ of the Medical Association a list of those services which did not pay doctors adequately and which doctors should, therefore, eschew when choosing a career. I was sorry to hear that our Army was included in that list. That seems to be a state of affairs which would deserve some recognition and, if the facts are as I was informed, some considerable change.

I want to refer the Minister to the administration of the L.D.F. I am sorry to have to say—probably the Minister is not aware of the position that exists—that there is a feeling in the Local Defence Force, particularly in the City of Dublin, that they are not wanted by certain high Army authorities. Before I became a member of this House, I had the honour of being in the L.D.F. in the City of Dublin and we were beset at all times by a series of pinpricks. There was nothing very violent on which we could put our finger and say: "That is disgraceful". But there was a series of small pinpricks which greatly interfered with the administration of the force. There was constant difficulty because, from time to time, the force was promised one thing or another and the promise was not redeemed in due time. It was redeemed only in a mingy way in the end, after we had fought, and fought hard, for it for a considerable time. We were promised that, after due consideration and after proper examination as to the ability of the personnel concerned, there would be some sort of confirmation of temporary commissions—an honorary thing. Nobody wanted to be paid for what he was doing, but we did want some recognition. As a result of some considerable fighting—that is the only word I can use—a very mingy confirmation in rank has now been issued under the authority of the O.C. of the command.

At least, when the officers of that force gave up as much time as they did in the first three years of the emergency, they should not have had to fight for that concession. That small recognition should have been given to them voluntarily and freely without the necessity for bickering. In the City of Dublin, a scheme has been set up which, no matter how well the individuals concerned wish to work it, is impracticable. I refer to the area scheme by virtue of which you have half personnel serving officers and half personnel L.D.F. officers. That scheme is not feasible for the simple reason that the serving personnel, in the nature of things, work from 10 o'clock to 5 o'clock in the afternoon, when we are working at our other jobs.

I made a suggestion some time ago— I do not know if it ever got as far as the Minister but I shall repeat it for his benefit in case it did not—that, as far as the City of Dublin was concerned, it was only possible to have an area staff consisting entirely of serving personnel and a battalion staff composed entirely of L.D.F. personnel because, as long as you have two mixed staffs, you are going to have the serving personnel going over the heads of the L.D.F. personnel. That has meant that there has grown up in the area a cleavage and division between L.D.F. and Army which does not make for good administration or for harmonious working.

There is another matter to which I should like to refer. The L.D.F. seems to be always behind the door, as compared with the other services, when anything is to be given out. We are continually in trouble over the allocation, from the Department of Supplies, of the petrol available for the services. Of this, I had practical evidence since I can see from where I live now the L.S.F. transport squad running around on their motor bicycles with apparently plenty of petrol to spare. The L.D.F. have a very distinct grouse because they cannot get it in the same way. There was also a regulation brought in, which is only being changed now when it is too late, that the L.D.F. were not going to be entitled to recruit for the first aid services. That was to be dealt with solely by the Red Cross, and the L.D.F. personnel feel that it was not going to be satisfactory, and that they did not want to be dependent on the Red Cross if anything happened. As long as you had that feeling in the forces— that they were not going to be looked after efficiently by another body not under their control—obviously they were not going to fight efficiently.

It seems to me that the administration of the L.D.F. can only be put on a basis of appreciating volunteer opinion. If the Minister is prepared to set up some sort of advisory body of L.D.F. officers, apart from serving personnel—because no matter whether the serving personnel had previous volunteer experience or not, I am afraid that they have lost the volunteer outlook so far as the L.D.F. is concerned—it would help to meet the difficulty. Unless we have something which will mean that the volunteer spirit will put up its views to the Minister without any question of control, or some sort of advisory body, the Minister will find that the L.D.F., certainly in Dublin and also in the Eastern and Curragh Commands, will dwindle and fall away.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Traynor)

In regard to the question of professional pay—because that is what I take it the Senator is referring to—there was a situation existing prior to the 1st December, 1938, which, as far as I know, did not lend itself to a feeling in the Army that all parties were being treated on equal terms, and I presume that my predecessor in office had to take note of that particular fact. He decided after, I am sure, much careful consideration, to revise the regulations in the manner in which they now stand. Previously the position was that the medical officers when they joined the Army came in on a special rate of pay which was a higher rate of pay than that offered to the ordinary infantry officer. My predecessor decided that it was much fairer to establish the system of ensuring that all officers would come in on the ordinary basic rate of pay, and that they would be remunerated then for their professional qualifications. These professional qualifications were measured in terms of years—the number of years that it took the particular individual to qualify for his degrees. That is the position that operates to-day, with this exception, that all the officers who were members of the Army Medical Service prior to the 1st December, 1938, retain the salary which they had at that particular period. The other men come in on the ordinary basic rate of pay plus a figure of, I think, £150, for Second Lieutenants and £120 for other commissioned ranks.

I do not think that that particular system can be regarded as being unfair. It is possibly true to say that numbers of these officers did come in visualising a career at the rate of pay which was there before them when they were joining the Army. But against that I want to point out that whatever rank they held in the period when this change was made, their rate of pay was not affected; they were allowed to retain that rate of pay and it is only when the question arises of promotion for these officers that there is any question of their being adversely affected.

But even there the possibility is fairly remote because if we take an example: the new minimum rate of pay for a captain in the Army Medical Service is 20/7per diem and for a commandant 26/7 per diem. The old rate of pay for a captain was 35/- per diem. You will see, therefore, that a captain on his maximum on the 1st December, 1938, was allowed to retain his inclusive rate of 35/- per diem on promotion to commandant. So that unless he went above the rank of commandant, he is in a very much better position than the officer who now comes in on the newer rate of pay. These regulations were brought in by my predecessor and I presume that they were brought in only after careful consideration. I will investigate the complaints in regard to the particular question of the alteration which have been raised here to-day.

In regard to the question of the L.D.F., I am not too sure that the Senator is not somewhat ill-informed in his remarks. The position in regard to the L.D.F. is that the Army regards the L.D.F. as a very serious organisation, upon which they place very great reliance, and to suggest for a moment that it is otherwise is quite untrue. The L.D.F. is an organisation which is administered almost wholly by senior officers of the Army. I have charged the Chief of Staff with full responsibility for the running of the L.D.F., for its organisation and administration, and he has appointed a senior colonel of the Army as a director of that force. There are then the four senior commanding officers of the Army responsible for the L.D.F. within their own command areas; and, again, there are senior officers, all the way down, until we come to the companies themselves, and the affairs of these companies are administered by junior officers, and the members of these companies are trained by N.C.O.s of the regular Army. We have administrative officers, who are senior N.C.O.s, looking after the general administration of the affairs of the various units concerned, and I cannot, for a moment, accept the suggestion put forward by the Senator that all is not well in the L.D.F. I am afraid that all is not well with the Senator's outlook, and that, if he were to go outside his own particular unit and try to examine the position from the broad national point of view, he would find that the L.D.F. is a healthy unit, practically all over the country.

I admit that there is no doubt that you will have, as you must have, with regard to any voluntary organisations, criticism of a certain type; but I think that we ought to get into our minds, and retain in our minds, the fact that this is a voluntary unit—a unit which is giving its services free, and without any reward. I think we ought to bear in mind that these people can turn up on parade on some nights, or absent themselves from parades on other nights, as the case may be; that you may have in your company to-night 50 men on parade, whereas you may have only 25 men on parade the following night, and, perhaps a week later, only 25 men on parade; but we have to remember that they may not be the same 25 men.

How are you going to maintain a uniform standard of efficiency in a force of that kind? I am sure that everybody will admit that it would be very difficult to do so, but it appears to me that, under the circumstances, the Army is doing a very valuable piece of work in maintaining the L.D.F. organisation at so high a figure as it is now, which is above the figure which obtained three years ago. I think that the best barometer—if that is a good way of describing it—of conditions in regard to the L.D.F. is that, year by year, since the start of the war, the L.D.F. has been increasing in strength and efficiency and that, in spite of the fact that we have been eliminating certain people who had not been attending their parades, the strength and efficiency of the organisation are increasing.

Now, I should like to say further that whatever dissatisfaction may exist among certain members of the L.D.F., it is my opinion that that dissatisfaction is due, in the main, to over-anxiousness: to a desire to do more than they are being asked to do. So far as that is concerned, I want to make this point very clear: that under no circumstances do the Army authorities desire to call the L.D.F. into action, if action should be necessary, before the Army proper would go into action. There is, or appears to be, a belief that the L.D.F., almost certainly, would go into action before the Army proper. That is not the function of the L.D.F. at all. Of course, it might be possible that, in certain circumstances a unit of the L.D.F. might find itself confronted by an enemy group, and that the officer of that unit of the L.D.F., might decide that it was necessary to go into action immediately against that enemy group, but that is not what the Army authorities desire. The Army authorities would much prefer to have a unit of the L.D.F. get back and inform the members of the Regular Army, so far as it would be possible to do so, of the state of affairs in the area concerned, and that, instead of going into action themselves, they should inform the Regular Army of conditions existing, so as to enable the Army to get into action as quickly as possible.

The tasks confronting the L.D.F. are tasks which, to my mind, would serve the nation very much better, if they carried them out efficiently and effectively. They are such tasks as I have already mentioned—making a careful observation of the situation that they find confronting them in an emergency, the organisation of available manpower and transport, and the maintenance—a very necessary thing so far as the Army is concerned—of normal communications. The maintenance of communications is a most essential task in times of emergency, but another task that would face the L.D.F. would be that of controlling traffic in a time of emergency. We all know of the situation that was brought about, during the present war, by the sudden advance of one force into a certain country, where all the roads were cluttered up by masses of motor cars and vehicles of every description, as well as by thousands upon thousands of people evacuating from the cities and towns. Accordingly, I think that the task before the L.D.F., if they are to be really effective in a time of emergency, would be that type, and I think that if they were to occupy themselves in keeping the roads clear from that type of obstruction, they would be doing more valuable service to the Army than by trying to dash into an attack against an enemy who might be far superior to them in both equipment and arms, as well as numbers. We do not want members of the L.D.F. to sacrifice themselves in that way, although I am quite sure that if a situation should arise in which the Army would have to call upon the members of the L.D.F. for effective action there would be no question as to the willingness of the members of the L.D.F. to do all that they could in defence of our country.

Mr. Hayes

Do I understand the Minister to say that there are actually more men parading in the L.D.F. in 1943 than were parading in that force in 1940?

Mr. Traynor

The Senator understood the Minister to say that there were more men in the L.D.F. to-day than there were three years ago, and that the force has increased gradually over those years, from its initial figures to the figures which obtain to-day, which, I may say, are thousands in advance of the previous figures.

Mr. Sweetman

Will the Minister look into the situation in the country generally, apart from the City of Dublin? I happen to have been a district adjutant and a brigade adjutant of the force, and it is my experience that the situation is quite different.

Mr. Traynor

I can assure the Senator that I shall not ignore a single word that has been spoken to-day. Every word that has been spoken to-day will be recorded in the Official Debates, and will be discussed between myself and the senior officers of the Army, and I can assure the Senator that if there is anything in the points he has made, it will be investigated; and that applies to remarks made by everybody in the House or in the country generally with regard to the L.D.F. Our attitude is that this is part of the armed forces of the country and that it should be made as efficient as the people of this nation expect it to be.

Mr. Sweetman

I am afraid that I seem to be saying rather too much to-day, but in this measure the Minister for Agriculture is asking for certain funds for his Department. He asks for them primarily on the record of his Department in past years, and particularly on his record of last year. When we remember—as everyone in this House will agree—that the whole national economy must depend on the prosperity or otherwise of agriculture, it is easy to see the importance of moneys provided for this Department. In that regard I was very glad to hear Senator O'Donnell, at the first meeting of this House, say that he fully appreciated that it was absolutely essential in his interest as an industrialist to have the farmers placed in such a way that they could afford to buy out of the surplus of their produce the products of industry. Agriculture, as every other industry, must, if it is going to succeed, depend on progress and in particular on the help it may get from scientific progress, in order to ensure that its products will be increased in number and that the expenses of production will be cut down. I would have thought that there would have been little necessity to stress that in regard to agriculture, but last week, in the other House, the Minister for Agriculture was asked for his views in regard to certain scientific progress. I ask the permission of the House to read the question:

"To ask the Minister for Agriculture if he will state whether there is any statistical information available in his Department relating to the quality, classification and state of fertility of the soils of this country, their suitability for cropping purposes, their general and particular condition; and whether his Department is in a position to give detailed information to farmers relating to soil deficiencies peculiar to their particular holdings which cause depressed yields and crop diseases."

The answer was:

"As regards the first part of the question, if the Deputy refers to the classification which soil chemists in neighbouring countries have for the time being agreed to adopt and which is based entirely on empirical laboratory methods, the answer is in the negative. As regards the latter part of the question, farmers themselves have a sound practical knowledge of the state of fertility of their soils and of the suitability of these soils for cropping purposes. The main causes of depressed yields are well-known and are more or less common to the country as a whole rather than peculiar to particular holdings. The information in regard to these causes which can be obtained from the agricultural instructors and which will be based on numerous field experiments conducted under varying conditions throughout the country, will be found far more reliable and practical than advice which may be based on the empirical laboratory methods already referred to and which may, in fact, be quite misleading."

I can read no other meaning into that reply than that the Minister does not want that in this country agriculture should have any regard to scientific progress, that he wants to ignore completely the progress made in the whole field of embryo biology during the past ten or 15 years. There have been very large advances in that science, particularly in America, and they have there as a result of scientific laboratory work satisfied themselves beyond yea or nay as to what are the essential chemical components of a per-fertile soil, that is, a perfect soil. I am not going to be so foolish as to suggest that the chemical components are the only important matters. Far from it, but they are at least one very important side to the question. In America the United States Soil Bureau has spent over $10,000,000 in working out a survey and analysis of the soil. In Sweden they have set up a station dealing with soil analysis that is supposed to be a model of its kind for the whole world. There, where they considered the matter to be one of very great importance, they have brought the whole principles of mass production into that particular plant. There, what happens is that a special soil sample is put at the beginning of a conveyer belt and taken through the conveyer belt through the whole establishment, and the different tests are applied to it as it passes along the conveyer belt. In Hawaii in every single sugar plantation the people are putting up money out of their own pockets to maintain laboratories on their farms. They have in these places two trained men on the plantation, one a laboratory man whose job it is to analyse the soil and the other an agriculturist whose job it is to transmute that analysis in the soil response. They have made up their minds in these countries that a per-fertile soil contains certain necessary components and that that realisation must be the whole basis particularly of artificial manuring.

In this country it appears that we are going to set aside all modern progress and are prepared to stay where we were many years ago. Modern conditions of life are far too complex to allow us to carry on with the casual methods of old. Last Monday I met one of my colleagues on the Kildare County Council. He had had a failure last spring in regard to a particular field of wheat. He could not understand exactly how that failure had arisen so he thought there might be something in the soil. He went to a lot of trouble to sterilise a sample jar of the soil and brought it to the Department of Agriculture. According to what he told me he was sent on from Billy to Jack, and from Jack to Jill, and finally arrived at the germination station. There he was told that they could not deal with the matter but that if he had a couple of hours to waste he might go up to Glasnevin. He was told, in other words, that it was all a farce. Other countries have thought it worth their while to invest sums on such analysis to ensure that the best possible information will be at the disposal of their farmers.

Remember that farming is not a thing in which you can make an experiment to-day and see the result tomorrow. You have got to wait a long time for the result of your experiment, and though farmers in this country have, as it is, far too little working capital for their own needs, much less sufficient working capital to enable them to indulge in pioneering of that description and to sit down and await the results of a more or less untried method, they have a right to expect that the State will do that pioneering for them and will make the result of the pioneering available to them in the most readily accessible way. As far as I can see, the main way in which we here make any result in agricultural progress available is by means of the leaflets issued through the Department. I have had for some considerable time, for some years, a bound volume of the Department's leaflets, and I went into the Stationery Office the other day to make quite certain that my volume was up to date and I was told it was not. As I had quite a distinct suspicion that there might be one or two leaflets that had been changed, because most of them are very old, I went on to the Department of Agriculture. I found there that, in fact, a large number of the leaflets had been changed. It seems to me peculiar that if details of more modern methods have been introduced into these leaflets, the Government Publications Office would not know that and would not be in a position to advise the public of that fact.

I want to refer the Minister for a short time to the leaflets issued by his Department. In the first place the most important leaflet of all which is issued at the present time is that dealing with the growing of wheat. Not only in this country but in every other country it is universally admitted that wheat will not grow—when I say "grow" I mean thrive — except on neutral soil, that it is not going to grow on acid soil. If a man has acid soil and wants wheat to thrive on it, the first thing he must do is to lime it. There is no suggestion, that I can see, in the Department's leaflets that it is necessary to neutralise acid or sour soil for this purpose. There is another leaflet in regard to the liming of land. The 1941 edition of that had a little paragraph dealing with chemical analysis and saying in effect that it was useless. I see that the 1943 edition cuts that paragraph, alluding to chemical analysis, out completely but omits to put anything else in its stead.

Members of the House are aware I am sure that there is in existence a ready method by which experiments as to the acidity or alkalinity of soil can be determined on the land. In cases in which it cannot be so determined there is an electrolysis method which can easily show up to the last degree the needs of the particular soil. Yet, there is not one word in regard to any one of these matters in the publications of the Department. One might think, having looked at the matter in that way, and finding that these things were absent that here our yield was better than in any other country. From any information I have been able to gather, I find that Norway, Sweden, Italy, France, the United Kingdom, the Czech Protectorate, Esthonia—I am talking of pre-war times — had almost double the yield per statute acre that we have in this country and that Belgium, Holland and Switzerland have a great deal more than double the yield. Denmark is in more or less the same position. Not only is the yield per statute acre less here than in those countries but the output per worker on the land is also less. Does that not show that there is something wrong with our method of carrying on agriculture in this country? Does it not show that there is at least some need to examine our consciences here to see whether we cannot bring into being new and improved methods of production and take advantage of the scientific progress that has been made in other countries?

In that connection, might I also make one suggestion to the Minister? I am afraid it is a suggestion which the Minister for Finance would hardly like. It is this: When a farmer puts up new buildings, they are at once valued and the Minister for Finance and the local county council come and take toll of that valuation. I think that to ensure that our farm buildings are kept up to date, or brought up to date in cases where they are not, there should be some provision whereby they will not be valued for some time or at least, if they are valued, that they will not be liable to taxes or rates for a considerable period, to give farmers an opportunity, as I have said, of bringing their static capital, in the shape of their buildings, in accord with modern needs.

I want to refer to one small aspect of the compulsory tillage Orders of the Minister. When the emergency came upon us and it became quite obvious that it would be necessary for us to produce here food with which to feed our people, the Minister and his Department issued a series, year after year, of compulsory tillage Orders. While he told us in these Orders very succinctly and very clearly what we had to do, he never suggested how we were to do it. He never took reasonable and adequate steps to ensure that there would be an adequate supply of machinery or labour to deal with the jobs that had to be done. I quite appreciate the Minister's difficulty arising from the fact that there was not sufficient machinery, and that we cannot hope to have sufficient machinery during the period of emergency, but I do say that last summer he got in some additional machinery— I think 22 threshing sets, about 100 reapers and binders and 100 tractors, approximately. There was then a heaven-sent opportunity for him to ensure that that machinery would not be used for the benefit of individuals but for the benefit of the community as a whole. Some people advocated at the time that the machinery should be allocated to different counties and should be set apart for the use of the county committee of agriculture of each county which could see that it was used to the best advantage.

The Minister, however, decided that that was not a satisfactory method. He decided he was going to give the machinery to individuals and asked these individuals when applying for it to say if they would be prepared to use the machinery not only on their own land but also to hire it out. I want to be quite clear on this matter. I give the Minister full credit for having inserted that provision. If it ended there all would be well, but in actual fact the suggestion that a man who got a new tractor at a pre-war price should use that tractor in the national good was nothing but a pious hope. In allotting the tractors, the Minister made no condition or retained no provision whereby he could force a man to honour his undertaking. I can tell the House of a particular instance where a man who got a tractor did his own reaping and his own harvest and put the tractor in his shed. When neighbouring farmers whose harvest was rotting in the fields went to that man, for the use of that tractor which had just been allotted to him, and tendered money in advance for the hireage of the tractor, he said to them: "My tractor is not going to work except on my own land". When I reported the case to the Minister's Department it transpired that no provision had been made to ensure that that tractor would be used for the national good in this time of emergency.

There was another case in the Midlands where a man who got a tractor sold his rights in it before it ever left the shop. In Leinster, there was another case where a man who had already one tractor, got a second one, and neither of those tractors has left that man's land to be hired out in the neighbourhood. There was a case, I understand, in County Meath where suddenly, one morning, neighbours found outside a cottage a nice new tractor without even a shed to house it. Now that shows that there was something very radically wrong in the Minister's allocation, or rather in his Department's allocation, because as I said, I do not think he was personally responsible. There is something rotten in the Department's allocation of machinery in this time of emergency when there is such a great shortage of machinery. It is quite plain that sufficient care was not taken to ensure that the machinery which would come into the country would be used in the national interest, and not for the individual private interest of one particular person.

In Kildare this year, we have had one very grave trouble. It is going to be far worse next year. I refer to the question of labour. I want the Minister to give us an indication, as far in advance as he possibly can, of the plans he intends to put into force next year to deal with the labour shortage. It is going to be very acute in North Kildare, and I would like to hear him assure us that he is prepared to turn out, or to make arrangements with the Minister for Defence for turning out, the entire Army if needs be, to make certain that our harvest during the next season is saved. This year it was possible under certain circumstances to obtain soldiers to assist in the harvest, but that was publicised in such a bad way that half of the farmers did not know about it, and in addition, when these soldiers were being sent, there was no discrimination of any sort, kind or description to ensure that soldiers who were sent to a particular area had some agricultural experience.

I know of one case where there were two young fellows, brought up on a farm, who were desperately anxious to help a farmer in Kilkenny. They applied to be taken on as two of the men sent to the farm, but instead of that ten men were sent — the farmer wanted ten — all of whom came from the City of Dublin, to do the job. Senators can well imagine that that job took a great deal longer to do than it would have taken if agriculturists serving in the forces had been sent. We are going to have a colossal task next year to save 37½ per cent., and unless the Minister makes up his mind to tackle the problem of labour, and the distribution of the machinery available in the areas where there is not that distribution at present, I am afraid that when this time next year comes, we are going to find that the results of the harvest have not reached our expectations.

Mr. Counihan

The question which I want to raise is not a very new one. I have debated it in the Seanad on a few occasions. I have been advocating for more than 30 years that the Dublin cattle market should be moved to the North Wall. The question has been considered by the Ports and Harbours Tribunal, as well as by several committees at the request of the Government, and everybody, as far as I know, has decided that the Dublin market should be changed to some suitable place at the North Wall, as convenient as possible to the docks. Apparently, Dublin Corporation have taken it into their heads to change the market. They have decided they would change it, but their decision was that it was not to go to the North Wall or to any place convenient to the North Wall or to shipping. They decided that the market should be changed across the road to Blackhorse Lane. There are many people in the cattle trade who believe the market should not be changed, that it should be left as it is, but I might as well explain that they are people with vested interests in Prussia Street.

Everyone who has no vested interests there, and who is interested in the cattle trade, believes that the cattle market should be removed to the North Wall. It is going to cost, I suppose, a million or perhaps more, of money to change it across the road where it would be of no benefit to the cattle trade or get rid of the loss by deterioration of cattle to be shipped from the market. Although many people do not agree that the cattle market should be changed, everybody, with any interest whatever in the trade, is unanimous on the one point — that if a change is to be made it should be to the North Wall.

Dublin market is a national institution. Every farmer in Éire is interested in the Dublin market, from Donegal to Dublin, and from Dublin to Kerry. Everyone reads the report of the Dublin market, and it has a great influence on the trade in cattle at different fairs the following week. I feel that there is so much importance in the Dublin market and such an enormous number of cattle go through it, that it should not be left to the decision of the Dublin Corporation as to where it should be placed. I believe it should be the duty of the Minister for Agriculture and he should have, at least, a final say in the removal of the market and its eventual location, after consultation with the people interested in the cattle trade.

It has been estimated by competent experts that the loss by deterioration of live stock shown in Dublin markets for want of proper facilities, and the loss sustained by not having proper lairage accommodation at the port, is over £500,000 annually. Dublin port is the gateway of Ireland and we should remember that three-fourths of the live stock which we export pass through Dublin markets. I think it is only reasonable to expect that the Government — when we are depending so much now on the exportation of live stock; as the Minister stated some time ago, it is the only thing we can hope to export with any hope of making a financial success — should pay more attention to seeing that better facilities are provided for the export of cattle from this country.

The Dublin market is of great financial benefit to the City of Dublin although the Dublin Corporation do not appreciate it. Previous to 1910, there was an Irish market in Liverpool City, but after the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in 1912 we were not allowed to send any live stock there; we had to send them for quarantining to Birkenhead. Liverpool Corporation suffered great loss through the Irish cattle market and they tried all they could to get it back.

The chairman of the Liverpool Markets Committee, Alderman Harford, now Lord Mayor of Liverpool, and a number of members of Liverpool Corporation, came to Dublin to consult the cattle trade association as to the place which would be most suitable for the landing of Irish cattle. That was in order to get back the market they had prior to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in 1912. If representatives of Liverpool Corporation could come over here to consult the cattle trade, is it not extraordinary that not a single member of any cattle trade association was consulted by Dublin Corporation before they decided to move Dublin cattle market across the road to Blackhorse Lane? I strongly protest against the action of Dublin Corporation in omitting to consult people in the trade who knew something of the matter. We have some members of Dublin Corporation in this House, and I am sure Senator Healy will be able to explain and defend the action of the corporation in changing the market without consulting us.

Proper lairage accommodation at the North Wall is most necessary. There are a number of private lairages owned by individuals and private shipping companies. In my opinion, the arrangement of the new cattle market and the provision of proper lairage accommodation should be part of one plan. All these private lairages should be taken over. If public lairages were provided, the necessity for these private lairages would disappear. The lairages should be under one authority, the Department of Agriculture, acting in consultation with the cattle trade. Until we have some provision such as that and until we are able to get our cattle shipped under proper, humane conditions we cannot hope for much success in the live-stock trade.

Mr. Foran

I take advantage of the presence of the Minister for Agriculture to draw attention to the glaring needs of the agricultural labourers. I want to know from him what steps he proposes to take to alleviate the conditions of these workers. They got an increase from the Agricultural Wages Board of 3/- per week. Everybody knows that 3/- is not at all commensurate with the enormous increase in the cost of living. Senator Sweetman deplored the scarcity of trained agricultural labourers. The Government have taken steps to prevent agricultural labourers from going abroad. These people would be welcome across the Channel, and would get three times the wages they are getting here but, in our wisdom and in our necessity, we prevent them from going abroad, and we pay them a miserable wage here. These workers are unorganised. To all intents and purposes, they are nobody's children except round about election time. As there is no election in the offing——

Mr. Baxter

Do not be too sure.

Mr. Foran

I cannot be accused of using propaganda on their behalf. Anybody with any human sympathy, realising the predicament these people are in because of their low wages, would support my plea. These wages are imposed upon them because we refuse to allow them to leave the country when, by doing so, they could substantially improve their financial position. The Minister must be aware of all that and he ought to tell us what steps he proposes to take in order to reduce the burden of the agricultural labourers. Does he propose to call the Wages Board together and give these people a reasonable wage so that they may live in frugal comfort? Or is he going to leave them to the mercy of the farmers of whom Senator Sweetman spoke, mentioning that one of them who had machinery suitable to his neighbours' requirements would not allow it outside his own garage? Are we going to leave it to people of that character to deal with their labourers?

So far as I know, the agricultural labourers are the most oppressed section of the community. They are unorganised and inarticulate and are only useful to others at certain periods. The farmer has, undoubtedly, improved his financial position. Farmers, generally, are much better off since the emergency than they were before. Can the same be said of their labourers? They are much worse off. Because of our necessity, we must retain them here and exploit them for a miserable wage while they could get three times that wage if they were permitted to leave the country. I earnestly appeal to the Minister to give this matter his immediate attention and, in some way, to alleviate the position of the agricultural labourers. They are necessary to the agricultural community and they are necessary to the city and town dwellers. Realising that necessity, let us make some compensation to them for the undoubted injustice we are imposing upon them by retaining them here. Many other sections of the community can go abroad and take advantage of the conditions existing outside the country but the Minister for Agriculture, realising the need for these people, will not allow them to leave. That being so, it is the duty of the Minister immediately to put machinery in operation to improve their position.

Cathaoirleach

Is it the intention of Senator Counihan to deal with the other items of which he has given notice — the allocation of agricultural machinery and milling offals?

Mr. Counihan

Most of what I have to say regarding agricultural machinery has been said by Senator Sweetman. I should like to know from the Minister what the prospect is of getting in additional agricultural tractors in the immediate future? I should like to reinforce the statement made by Senator Sweetman, that these tractors should be given to the agricultural committee in each county and let them hire them out to people who have not the necessary machinery for the cultivation of their land. In my own neighbourhood, some people who have got these tractors are, certainly, working for the farmers but they are working at what I consider too high a price. I know one case in which they are charging £2 an acre merely for ploughing the land. I believe that is entirely too much; and if there was some other policy adopted instead of giving those tractors to individuals in the hope that they would be hired out, I think it would be very much better for the general good of the community.

I would like to have some information from the Minister with regard to the policy that is going to be adopted with the milling offals. After the 15th of next month, I understand, there will be 15 per cent. of milling offal for use by the community, and I would like to know what the policy is in regard to it. Will the people who supply the wheat and barley to the millers be entitled to any allocation? I would suggest that that milling offal should be reserved for the production of pigs, and that a little of it should go to horses, bran being useful for them, and also to the owners of poultry for the production of eggs.

Dr. Ryan (Minister for Agriculture)

What about the milch cows?

Mr. Counihan

I would confine it to the pig producers and the poultry feeders. I think it would be good policy for the Minister to consider that, having regard to the small quantity that we will have to reserve for those people.

Mr. O'Donnell

Being a new member, I undertook the curious task of reading the Estimates carefully, and having a practical type of mind, I wondered why it was when I saw a loan of £14,000 in respect of bulls, and when I came to the agricultural scholarships I saw that the total amount voted was £1,400. I do not profess to know anything about agriculture, but everywhere one hears criticisms of the fact that we are not as developed technically in agriculture as we should be.

It struck me that in this country anything that could be done to help the teaching of a more scientific type of agriculture should be done to the fullest possible extent. I am not raising the question in a contentious spirit, but I wonder why there is only £1,400 for scholarships in agriculture, while we shout from the housetops that this is an agricultural country. I realise that it is a joint question and that the Ministers for Finance and Agriculture cannot answer in joint voices.

Mr. Baxter

I am glad that Senator Sweetman raised the question of the Minister's answer to a question which I have raised here — the problem of soil testing. I have read and re-read the Minister's answer, and I hope that the Minister will take it up to-day and parse it line by line. If it means what I think it means, I am astonished that the Minister would give such answer. I referred on previous occasions to the necessity for a soil survey. It was something that there was not so much talk of or concentration on then, even in the neighbouring island as there is now, but in the opinion of quite a number of other thinking farmers, the whole basis of our farming policy and progress is going to be determined by what we know about soils. We must know the kind of body on which we are going to operate. We do not know that to-day.

The Minister's answer stated: "If the Deputy refers to the classification which soil chemists in neighbouring countries have agreed to adopt, the answer is in the negative." We are not going to do what they are doing in a neighbouring country. They are doing two sorts of tests there, the laboratory test and the quick test in the fields. We are doing neither and, as I gather from the Minister's answer, we are going to do neither. There is not a country in the world where so much piffle has been talked about wheat growing as in this one. There has been a great deal of talk by people who did not understand the difficulties of growing wheat. I feel that a great many of the failures and prejudices built up against the growing of wheat are due to the fact that we did not know what sort of soil was needed for the successful growing of wheat. Nobody has tried to find out what sort of soil we ought to have, or whether it had the necessary constituents.

I am speaking from personal experience of efforts to grow wheat. I have had failure, and I have asked the opinion of technical people, and I have not been able to get an answer. I have discussed the possibility and the difficulty of getting soil tests made, and I find there is no encouragement to get farmers to have soil examined to see whether there is a lime deficiency or not. I feel that a great part of the area in which we are now expected to grow wheat successfully has such acidity that there is not a hope of successful wheat growing and because of such conditions wheat growers have to be paid a price really out of proportion to what would be reasonable if conditions were as they ought to be. For that reason I can only confess astonishment at the stand taken by the Department in this matter.

The answer went on:

"The main causes of depressed yields are well known and are more or less common to the country as a whole, rather than peculiar to particular holdings. The information in regard to these causes, which can be obtained from the agricultural instructors, and which will be based on numerous field experiments, conducted under varying conditions, will be found far more reliable and practical than advice which may be based on the empirical laboratory methods, which may be quite misleading."

I hope the Minister will tell us what the causes are, because the causes of failure in wheat growing are causes about which there are great differences and about which there is no authentic information available. A great many men are now learning more about wheat growing than was known about it at first, and had we started with more knowledge in the beginning and had more real experimental work to guide us, there would be far more successful wheat growing. What measure of success has been achieved in regard to the production of beet has been due very largely to the ability to discover the constituents available in the soil and to try to neutralise the things that are not satisfactory from the point of view of that crop. What position are we going to be in at the end of the war?

In the neighbouring island, and, to a certain extent, in the Six Counties, every farm is going to be mapped and classified, and the condition of the soils clearly revealed as to whatever the value of the constituents of each farm may be. We know nothing whatever about that, and, as a result, we shall be handicapped in the race, from the beginning, if we do not have such soil surveys. It may be that the Minister and his Department know very well that there is a continuous fall in the fertility of our soil and that, knowing that, any further talk about the matter would only serve to corroborate the fact, and that there is no use in talking about it in times like these, when we cannot get artificial manures from abroad. I do not know whether that is at the back of the Minister's mind, but again, with regard to the fall in the fertility of our soil, I should like to point out that it might be the case that you may have a fall in nitrogen content without a drop in other soil constituents, and that they might not be in the same proportion. For instance, certain soils might not be deficient in nitrogen content, whereas other soils might be in a deplorable condition, as a result of the lack of nitrogen. At any rate, I suggest to the Minister that when the time comes when nitrogen, phosphates, and so on, are available again, if we are to do anything on a scientific basis, with a view to getting a fairly-balanced condition with regard to farming as a whole in this country, it would be a magnificent idea to ascertain what will be essential to give a balanced ration of artificial manures for the production of a particular crop. I do not know how that is to be done except by the old rule-of-thumb method, which our farmers employed formerly.

How would you enforce it?

There are some small points left to be dealt with. With regard to milling offals, we have come to a tentative decision — I do not say a firm decision — but I think I may say that roughly speaking what we intend to get the millers to do is to issue half of their offals for inclusion in compound feeding stuffs, which certain classes of farmers use, the other half to be issued direct for sale as bran and pollard. I was rather anxious to have the possibility examined of having the offals go back to the wheat-grower as beet pulp goes back to the beet-grower. I am afraid that that would be absolutely impossible, this year, at any rate. From the difficulties pointed out to me, it would be a big task to make that scheme work even next year, with plenty of notice.

However, we shall have the matter examined and see if it can be done next year. All we can do this year is distribute the offals to the wholesalers and, through them, to the retailers, leaving it to the retailers to make the best distribution they can amongst their farmer customers. I think that it would be impossible to base the supply on the number of poultry or even the number of horses a farmer may happen to have. The owner of dairy cows could make a good case for supply of offals. So could the owner of young calves and we know that pollard is very good for young pigs. There are very few animals in respect of which a claim could not be made in this connection. It is better not to try that method but to let the offals go through the retailers to the farmers in the ordinary way.

General Mulcahy

Would I be in order, Sir, in congratulating the Senator on the fact that the people of County Monaghan, who use a particular type of fuel in kilns, have been able to escape the vigilance of the Department of Supplies; and might I point out to him that if these people were industrialists in the City of Dublin they would be prosecuted. For instance, Messrs. Cadbury were prosecuted for using offals consisting of the sweepings of ships for fuel, even though, as a result of nine months ships' sweepings, they were able to contribute a considerable amount to the fuel emergency, and yet they were prosecuted for doing so.

Mr. Johnston

All I was saying was that the farmers are entitled to have the use of the oatmeal produced from their own oats.

General Mulcahy

I am talking about the fuel used in these kilns, to which the Senator has referred.

Mr. Madden

Seeing that this debate has developed over a rather wide range, it is with a certain amount of temerity that I chance my hand, at the risk of being called to order. We have two schemes here, operating for the benefit of the agricultural community, and I cannot speak highly enough in praise of each.

Mr. O'Donovan

We are finished with agriculture.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.

Mr. O'Donnell

In raising a question about the telephone service, I should like first of all to say that, of course, I appreciate the fact that when one speaks in a House such as this he is privileged and I very much regret that I should have at any time to speak in a manner that, as it were, might reflect on an individual civil servant. I hope the Minister will be cognisant of that fact when I am speaking of this service generally. It is quite common to hear particularly all over the city complaints about the inefficiency of certain branches of the telephone service. It is an undisputed fact that if you ring up Inquiries, either 30, 31 or 0, you have got to wait an unconscionable length of time before you get a reply. I had experience of three cases recently when I had to ring up Inquiries. In one case there was a delay of 15 minutes, in another case a delay of eight minutes, and in a third case a delay of seven minutes, and even in the last case, after getting a reply, I was not able to get any further because I was not able to get through. I know that the answer the Minister possibly will give is that I should make a complaint, but I should like to point out to the Minister that myself and other members of the public who are ordinary folk are not aware of the procedure to be followed in making a complaint. You ring 0, 30 or 31, as the case may be, and if you do not get a reply within a reasonable time you just leave the 'phone in exasperation. You may curse or consign somebody to damnation, but there the matter rests, with the result that the telephone service goes on giving the same unsatisfactory service as before.

I am not raising this matter because I have any strong personal feelings about it. I am a rather placid person, but the general impression I have gathered from hearing people talk about the telephone service is that there is a considerable amount of either inefficiency or carelessness in its administration. I do not know where the blame lies, whether the service is understaffed or not, whether it is the mechanism of the telephone exchange that is out of date, or whether it is the difficulty in procuring spare parts or getting necessary steel equipment that makes it so difficult for subscribers to get a reply within a reasonable time. In case the Minister upbraids me with the fact that I did not complain, apart from making a complaint to him, I would point out that I do not know where I am to complain nor does the average member of the public who is annoyed by this inefficient service know where he is to complain. I should like the Minister to keep that point in mind, and to tell us if he has received any general complaints of these three branches of the service. I often wonder if a man were to become suddenly ill in the street, and one had to send an emergency call to a hospital, or for an ambulance, whether the entry of the recording angel would not have dried before any response had been received to the telephone call. I do not know what happens in cases where emergency calls are sent through to hospitals or to ambulances, but from my experience and the experience of many other people in trying to get a reply, it occurs to me that people are dying as a result of this inefficient telephone service. I am not going to label anybody, because I am not sure who is to blame, but I think this is a matter which calls for some explanation from the Minister as to why telephone subscribers are not getting a better service.

I should like also to raise the question of the broadcasting service, because Senator McGee, who intended to raise that matter, is not here now. The particular point which the Senator wished to raise is that he would like if it were possible — it is a peculiar point — that announcers with more melodious voices should be employed by the Broadcasting Station. He said that in the countryside the broadcasting service is all important. Many of the people there do not get daily papers or evening papers, and they want to hear as distinctly as possible the news given over the radio. He said that it was an extraordinary thing — I do not know whether it is true or not — that whenever a Minister has to be announced, the particular announcer exhibits a quality of tone which is not usual on other occasions. I do not know whether that is due to Ministerial charm or not, but the Senator told me that when Mr. Lemass was being announced recently the speaker had a particularly melodious voice.

I do not know whether the announcer on that occasion was the gentleman who is a particular friend of mine but, if only for the sake of euphony, I think it would be well if some effort were made to fulfil the Senator's desires in this respect. If there is a particular quality which makes an announcer's voice more melodious, we should endeavour to secure announcers who are gifted with that particular quality. I would like to point out that in my opinion if we employed more lady announcers it would add to the distinctness of broadcasts from our Irish station. We all know the famous lady announcer in Italy. It is universally recognised that she has got a particular type of voice which is specially suitable for broadcasting, and I think we all desire that when Radio Eireann broadcasts to the world, the particular voice that is heard should have the tempo and the quality of distinctness that has made the Italian lady so famous. That is, however, only by the way.

In talking generally about the broadcasting service, I know that the attitude usually adopted is to treat it as a sort of cockshy, but I should like to pay tribute to it for what it does. It is very easy to be critical of an exceedingly difficult service such as broadcasting. Nothing is easier than destructive criticism. Our broadcasting service is not perfect by any means, but neither is anything else that I know in this country. Taking it generally, however, I think it is a good service. The programmes sometimes are not as well balanced as they might be. On one night there is a plethora of music and on the next night a plethora of talk, but as far as the programmes generally are concerned, I do not think they leave much room for complaint. In Northern England and in Northern Ireland, where I have been recently, the general standard of the service given by Radio Eireann is highly appreciated. The fact, however, that it is to a certain extent good, does not mean that it is entirely satisfactory, and I am going to suggest to the Minister that he might consider the advisability of setting up an advisory committee in connection with broadcasting. It is a well-known fact that when people are some time in a certain job or in a certain service they get into a rut and that they lose the imagination and the ideas that could be supplied from outside sources.

I know that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is not a man who will turn down an idea lightly, and there are plenty of outside ideas to be had, to be examined, annotated and applied, if possible, for the betterment of the service. I seriously suggest to him that he might consider the establishment of a small committee of, say, six people, people who would be, as it were, an inspiration, who would bring in ideas, and who would give up following and imitating outside broadcasting services as far as they possibly could. Up to now, we have been inclined to build our broadcasting service by reference to something we have heard in England or elsewhere. Our broadcasting service should be something distinctive. It should have a quality of its own, and a mind of its own.

I think that the programme would be greatly improved by more broadcasting of plays. Personally, I am very interested in the drama, and I find that the majority of people like listening to plays. The quality of the drama which is sometimes given to us is not as good as I would like it to be. I would like the Minister to reconsider the continued broadcasting of plays by the Abbey company. They were well worth listening to. The actors are known, and broadcast well. That is work which adds to the cultural values of this country, apart from the good entertainment value provided for listeners.

I plead, also, that in the matter of paying writers, the broadcasting services should exercise a more generous attitude. Anybody who tries to write will tell you that his labour has not finished by the time the play is ready for broadcasting. You have to start by writing the play. You have to time it, rewrite it, cut it and edit it before rehearsing and producing it. At the end of all that labour, the author usually gets a guinea. I do not know what the producer gets, but I am told that the players get very poor fees indeed, for the services they give. If we are going to raise our standards of broadcasting to the right level, I would like to say that no payment is too high to give to anyone who would disseminate our cultural influence abroad and add to the prestige of this country. I believe that the Minister's idea should be to get the highest possible cultural values out of the service. He is not going to get the best artiste to supply him with material for the same rate at which he can expect an ordinary artiste to work. You will not get writers of eminence or ability to write for a guinea per 1,000 words. Radio Eireann is probably our only outside contact with the world to-day. By it we are judged, just as we are judged by our creative values, and it is a very serious thing from the national point of view if we do not give of the very best through that service.

I know that there are limitations. I know that the limitation is sitting on the Minister's extreme left at the moment, but even in the matter of finance, I suggest that the view ought to be taken that nothing of ourselves is too good to give the world. I am sure that as far as the officials are concerned they try, and are only too glad to give the best, if it is available. I am not criticising them. I know the difficult time they often have to fill up the programmes, but I feel that any money spent on broadcasting that can add to its cultural quality is money well spent.

Mr. Baxter

I ask the Minister what point of view he has, or what his policy is on agricultural talks. I raised the question on a number of occasions. I know that I am not the only one who is dissatisfied with the kind of policy the Minister has in this respect. Whether we like it or not, farming is the biggest job in this country. It is a vital job now and for a number of years ahead. For that reason, every scrap of propaganda that can be utilised to keep its significance before the whole people should be utilised. As far as the broadcasting service here is concerned, it does not bring any aid to farmers compared with what has been done in other countries. We have been reduced to the position that they are not taken into account at all. That is not as it ought to be. In many respects we are very much behind other countries. It is not a disadvantage, I know, in a way, but, as far as our farming and general agricultural difficulties are concerned, the broadcasting service could do much for us.

I adverted in this House before to the fact that I had communicated with the then Director of Broadcasting. I did not get very much consideration. In fact, I could hardly say that I got courtesy in the reply. I do not know whether conditions are altered, and whether they are more amenable or reasonable towards outside opinion now. Senator O'Donnell suggested that we ought to do something different from what is being done elsewhere, that we ought not to be a mere copy of the broadcasting service in another country where conditions of life are different. But, I put it to the Minister that at the same time it would be important from the point of view of the broadcasting service that we should listen occasionally to what is broadcast elsewhere to see whether there was something left out of our programme that could be inserted with advantage to the nation as a whole. Agriculture has all sorts of problems and when the farmers are confronting difficulties the whole nation must face them, too. There is a necessity for enlightenment and better understanding and every method of spreading it among our people should be utilised.

In that respect, the broadcasting station is giving us only a minimum of help. We get an occasional talk. In a time of great crisis, some of the spokesmen of the Ministry will be brought along to talk to us, but so far as the general policy of enlightenment is concerned, it is not carried out consistently over a period. Nothing like that has been done. None of the intelligent opinion in rural Ireland is drawn upon or consulted with regard to what the broadcasting service might give us. I put it to the Minister that that would be profitable from the point of view of the Minister for Finance as well. It would make the programmes more attractive and valuable because there are things which can be taught through the broadcasting service that cannot be got across in any other way. I would like to hear what has been done in other countries, how this service has been utilised for the benefit of agriculture, and how it could be utilised here.

Mr. Crosbie

Senator O'Donnell has raised the question of the telephone service. I cannot allow the opportunity to pass without paying a tribute where I think tribute is due. In the course of my business, I am forced, and we are forced, to rely on the telephone to a very large extent — probably, even to a greater extent than is so busy a man as Senator O'Donnell. It is not always in metropolitan areas that we have to rely upon it. We have to rely upon it in rural areas where mechanical facilities are anything but what they ought to be. Perhaps Senator O'Donnell was unlucky or, perhaps, he struck mechanical difficulties. I should like to pay a tribute to the courtesy of the staff of telephone operators generally. It has been my experience, and the experience of my colleagues, that no trouble is, as a rule, too great for them to facilitate us as users. At times, lines are overloaded and work is difficult, but we have always been treated with the utmost courtesy and helpfulness. I could not let the opportunity pass without paying that tribute in face of the criticism which has been urged.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Ba mhaith liom beagán a rá maidir leis an radio go speisialta. An méid atá agam le rá ní ag fáil locht ar an seirbhís é ach a mhalairt. Ar an gcéad dul síos, is féidir a rá go bhfuil an t-ádh orainn go bhfuil fear mar an Aire ós cionn an Roinn Puist agus Telegrafa agus ós cionn an radio—fear a bhfuil an oiread dúil aige san chultúr agus gach a bhaineas leis agus i ngach rud a thuilleas meas don tír. Feictear dom go bhfuil feabhas mór tagaithe ar an radio le roinnt blian anuas. Is cuimhin liom an tráth nuair a bhíos mí-shásta ar fad leis. Níos minice ná uair amháin bhí orm dul ar thoscaireacht go dtí muintir an radio. Míníodh dúinn na deacrachtaí a bhí ann agus cuireadh in iúl dúinn chó mór agus ba mhaith leo rud ar bith a thiocfadh leo a dhéanamh. Isé mo thuairim, am ar bith a fuaireadar comhairle a bhí in-déanta no réasúnta, go ndearnadar a ndícheall déanamh dá réir. Ní dóigh liom go dtug aon duine comhairle dhóibh nár chuireadar fá scrúdú agus nár bhaineadar leas as, dá mb' fhéidir é do dhéanamh. Is é mo thuairim go bhfuil feabhas mór ar an scéal le roinnt blian anuas. Tá a fhios againn go bhfuil deacrachtaí ann. Ní dóigh liom go n-éistigheann duine ar bith annso chó minic leis an radio agus a éistím fhéin. Táim ag éisteacht leis o mhoch ar maidin go dtí mall san oíche. Nuair a bhím ag obair ghním mo dhícheall éisteacht leis an radio chó maith, agus isé mo thuairim go bhfuil an radio atá againn chó maith leis an radio atá ag a lán tíortha eile.

Rud eile a chuireas áthas orm—an "spas" atá an radio a thabhairt don Ghaedhilg le déanaí. Níl a fhios agam i gceart cá mhéad ama atá á thabhairt don Ghaedhilg fá lathair ach is dóigh liom nach bhfuil sé níos lugha ná trian den am — muna bhfuil sé níos mó. Ní bheidh mé sásta go dtí go gcuirfear radio ar bun i nGaedhilg ar fad agus tá an chuid is mó againn ag súil le sin, do réir mo thuairime. Ar bhealach, is truagh nach féidir an trian san do líonadh le habhar sásúil. Uaireannta cuirtear rudaí ar bun i nGaedhilg nach bhfuil ar fheabhas. B'fhéidir go bhfuil siad chó maith agus is féidir d'fháil agus go gcaithfimíd bheith sásta leo ach tá súil agam go gcuirfear feabhas air mar a théigheann na blianta thart.

Tá an tuairim ag cuid de na daoine a bhíonn ag éisteacht leis an radio atá againn nach bhfuil an caighdeán no an "standard" ró-árd. Ach is éigin dúinn cuimhneamh air seo—nach bhfuil san tír seo ach 3,000,000 daoine agus, i gcomparáid le tír ina bhfuil níos mó ná 30,000,000, níl an uimhir chéanna de cheoltóirí no de dhrámadóirí maithe. Rud díth céilleach sea é bheith ag súil le caighdeán chó hárd san tír seo agus atá sna tíortha mora. Tá rogha agus togha acu san rud nach bhfuil againnne. Ach ar ócáid mar seo is éigean dúinn focal beag molta do thabhairt don bhuidhean cheóil. Gan amhras, tá feabhas ar chaighdeán an cheóil. Caithfimíd a admháil go bhfuil sé sár-mhaith nuair a chuimhnímíd ar an méid daoine tá san bhuidhean cheóil, an deis atá acu agus an fhaill atá acu ar chleachtadh. Níl sé chó maith leis na buidhne ceoil móra i Sasana no in Aimerica ach, dá mhéid agus dá dheis, tá sé chó maith leis na buidhne atá le cloisint i Sasana no in Aimerica. Is dóigh liom gur cheart an méid sin molta do thabhairt dóibh. Deirtear uaireannta nach seineann siad ceol Gaedhealach chó minic agus ba chóir dóibh. Ach tá deacrachtaí ann, más rud é nach bhfuil ceol scríobhtha ar fáil. Caithfimíd smaoineamh ar an dóigh is fearr leis an gceist sin do leasú. Más ceist airgid é, tá a fhios againn go bhfuil an leigheas ar fáil i gcroidhe an Aire Airgeadais. Ach is dóigh liom go bhfuil deacracht ann nach deacracht airgid é.

Rud eile go mba mhaith liom tagairt a dhéanamh dó: nuair a bhíonn daoine ag fuagraíocht, no ag bollscaireacht mar ba chóir dom a rá, cuireann siad an iomad díbh fhéin sna fuagraí. Is leor an ceoltóir d'ainmniú gan é a mholadh go hárd. Ní maith liom an bhollscaireacht so ar aon chor. Ba cheart do na daoine seo a bhíonn ag fuagraíocht a gcuid oibre do dhéanamh "objectively", gan a dtuairime féin do thabhairt — tuairime nach bhfuil ceart go minic.

Rud eile go mba mhaith liom moladh do thabhairt don Aire mar gheall air: deis a bheith ag muintir na mbailte móra ar na ceoltóirí is fearr do chloisint sna bailte sin. Má tá ceoltóir ar a bhfuil clú mór ag teastáil uainn le haghaidh cuirm ceoil i nGaillimh, cuir i gcás, is féidir linn é d'fháil, agus muna n-íocann an radio an costas ar fad, bhal, ní brisfear lucht na cuirme ceoil leis an méid a bheidh orra a íoc. Is mór an buntáiste scoth na gceoltóirí a bheith ar fáil ag muintir na mbailte móra san dóigh seo agus faill a bheith ag na daoine éisteacht go pearsanta leo. Níl a fhios agam an don Aire no don Stiúrthóir atá an moladh ag dul mar gheall air sin ach tá súil agam go leanfar leis an bplean so.

Maidir le habhar an radio, tá a fhios agam, mar a dubhairt mé cheana, gur deacair abhar oiriúnach d'fháil. Is cuimhin liom, nuair a bhí an Dochtúir Ó Ciarnáin os cionn an radio, gur iarr sé ar dhream daoine cuidiú leis agus daoine oiriúnacha d'fháil don radio. Do shiúil mé Cúige Connacht agus Contae an Chláir ag iarraidh ceoltóirí agus daoine eile a bheadh oiriúnach d'fháil. Ach ní ró-mhaith a d'eirigh liom. B'iongantach an uimhir bheag de cheoltóirí oiriúnacha a bhí ann. Is ceart cuimhneamh air sin nuair a bhímíd ag fáil lochta ar mhuintir an radio.

Táim ar aon intinn leis an Seanadóir Baxter mar gheall ar chainnt ar thalmhaíocht ar an radio, agus ní minic a bhím ar aon intinn leis an Seanadóir sin. Is iomdha uair a dubhairt mé leis an Aire Talmhaíochta go mba chóir dó teacht níos minice chuig an radio. Chonnaic mé daoine ag bailiú le chéile i dtigh éigin chun éisteacht leis an Aire ar an radio agus bhí diosbóireacht acu tar éis na cainnte. Chuireadar spéis mhór in a chuid chainnte agus dá dtiocfadh se níos minice chuig an radio bhainfeadh na daoine buntáiste as a chomhairle. Deir daoine áirithe go bhfuil an iomad léigheachtaí agus cainnte ar an radio. Nílim ró-chinnte faoi sin. Cuireann muintir na tíre spéis mhór sna léigheachtaí agus sna cainnteanna seo agus dá mbeadh census ann, b'fhéidir go bhfuighfí amach go gcuireann siad níos mó spéise i rudaí mar seo ná ina lán abhar eile.

Tá súil agam nach fada go mbeidh an tAire in ann níos mó do dhéanamh chun an guthán do chur ar fáil do mhuintir na tuaithe. Tá eolas agam ar cheanntar amháin agus chím línte ag dul go dtí tigh an tsolais agus go dtí oifig an phuist agus gan seirbhís gutháin ag muintir na háite. Is dócha go bhfuil deacrachtaí ann — deacrachtaí airgid agus eile — ach ba cheart ionnsuidhe do dhéanamh ar na deacrachtaí seo chó luath agus is féidir é a dhéanamh.

Sin a bhfuil agam le rá maidir leis an Roinn Phuist agus Telegrafa. Tá súil agam go leanfaidh lucht an radio leis an bhfeabhsú chó maith agus atá siad a dhéanamh le déanaí. Má dheineann siad sin, ní bheidh aon chúis gearáin ag na daoine.

General Mulcahy

I do not speak on this matter with as much experience of the radio as Senator O Buachalla, and perhaps even in listening to the Irish programmes I do not pay the systematic attention to them that the Senator does. But I would like to make this point. The Senator has spoken of the improvement that has taken place — and which we all admit — in the musical side of the radio programme, and we appreciate very much the orchestra that is attached to the station. I think most people who are interested in real cultural development would claim that the Irish language is as important as music. I do not want to put them in comparison at all, because I do not think that we can say that the Irish language will progress in this country except we develop that thing in us which gives us an appreciation of music. At any rate we regard the salvation and spread of the Irish language as a matter of the greatest importance for the spread of our national culture. The radio gives us a medium of getting certain things to all the people that we cannot get to them in any other way. I do not think there is any other way in which we can get a full appreciation of the power of spoken Irish like the radio can give it, and I do not think that there is any branch of radio work more important. You do find from time to time, either in dramatisation or in speaking or announcing in Irish some lovely voices but generally the most irritating and unlovely part of the radio programmes are some of the Irish voices that come across. I want to suggest to the Minister that just as he has assembled an orchestra which, I might say, is a full-time body, he ought gradually to assemble a small group of dramatic speakers in Irish, associated with the station, so that you could have a group of dramatic reciters for dramatic work and announcing work gradually built up. You have the music but it is even more important in the present stage for recovering and developing the spread of the Irish language that we concentrate on doing some work in that particular kind of way.

In the last fortnight there was a small drama presentation, and there was one voice that was glorious to listen to. It is only very occasionally that you hear good voices, but if a group of musicians can be brought together and kept as a regular station orchestra, there is no reason why in a full-time way a small group of dramatic reciters should not be brought together in the same way. Even those who listen to other radio programmes in English will recognise what I mean when I praise the commemoration occasion of the late Seamus Ó Ceallaigh, where you had a glorious dramatisation of a small play or story of his, and where you had experienced elocutionists doing the reading of their pieces. We want the same in Irish, because if there is anything we have in Irish it is the pure voices that go with delightful speaking to bring it out.

The Minister may say that you have to depend on the speakers available in Dublin, but there is no reason why the whole country could not be scoured for people who have the necessary voice for radio purposes, and why they should not be given a full-time living on that kind of work in the city. The number involved would be very small, and when you consider the importance of it the expense is hardly worth speaking of. At the present time it is very hard for many people to get a living, especially in the West and South of Ireland, and there must be hundreds of glorious Irish voices in these districts that could be utilised and made the basis of a little dramatic group in the station. That is the suggestion that I very earnestly make to the Minister. Literally, the same thing applies to singing. The folk idea of singing is that a song should be a story, but a lot of singing that we get over the radio is no story. It reminds me more of yodelling than anything else, and if some little attention could be paid to proper articulation by Irish singers it would save the Irish language from a lot of damaging criticism that it gets undeservedly, because of the rough way in which the language is used by some rough voices.

Mr. Healy

I wish to make a suggestion to the Minister and to the Director of Broadcasting. The language movement now is after finishing its 50th year, and the Director of Broadcasting was one of the outstanding students in its early days. As a member of the Keating branch of the Gaelic League he made a wonderful success of his knowledge of the language in every subject he took up. The Gaelic League was formed in 1893, but did not take any great root until after 1908, when it succeeded in repairing the position caused by the disunity of the Parnellite split. It is time that we should get seriously down either to revive the language or finish with it. I do not think there can be any greater incentive to the young people now learning the language in the schools — and they have made wonderful headway in the schools — than to have discussions upon the difficulties that were experienced by the earlier workers in the movement in this city, explaining these difficulties and the possibilities that now exist of cultivating the language.

Mr. Honan

I have listened to the debate with interest, in particular to Senator Mulcahy, but his complaint is not concerned with the matter that I want to object to. The question I am interested in is the number of people who can listen to the radio programme. If you go through the countryside now, you will find that the number of homes in which a radio is installed is only about 5 per cent., and therefore whatever programme is put on can be of little value for those who cannot hear it. No matter what programme is put over, it can be of very little value to them. I believe that a great way of disseminating good national news would be to have a radio set installed in every house, and I would suggest to the Minister that the installation of the radio in every house should be encouraged — even in small houses in the country. I suggest that the Minister should make it feasible and possible to have a radio installation in every house in the country. Otherwise, it does not matter what programme you put on, because only a small percentage of the population will hear it.

I think the Government should have on its programme the installation in almost every house in the country of radio facilities, if it can possibly be done within reasonable bounds. What is the use in putting over a grand Irish programme, which might be of considerable interest to the people of the Fíor-Ghaeltacht or the Breach-Ghaeltacht, when, possibly, only one house in 100 in these areas has the advantage of the installation of radio in their houses? Therefore, I suggest that the Minister should make it possible, within the means at his disposal, for everybody in this country to have a wireless installation in his own home. That is the main point I want to make, although it may appear to be a small point.

With regard to the telephone system in small country stations here, I have some observations to make. I had occasion, recently, in connection with very important business, to telephone to a sub-post office in a small town in the country, where there was not even a station of the Gárda Síochána. In this particular case, the postmaster or postmistress lived in the house, but still the message could not be accepted. Why? I do not know. They were there on the premises, but the message could not be taken. Let us say that the head office in Limerick sent out the message to them, and they were there on the premises, in this little sub-post office in the country; still I was told that they could not receive my message or do anything about it. I then had to get through to the Gárda Síochána station, which was about five miles away, and, of course, the Gárda Síochána were very obliging and did all that they could for me; but why should not the postmaster or postmistress of a particular post office in, say, Timbuctoo, or anywhere else you wish to mention, not be allowed to take my message and send it out? There may be good and ample reasons for this, but I should like to hear from the Minister what they are. I think that a message of an urgent nature, such as the message I had to send, should be dealt with immediately. It was not a question of the people concerned being absent. They were there on the premises but, according to the regulations, it would appear that they could not disseminate the message after 7 o'clock, although the office concerned was the nearest with which I could get in touch. I think that the Minister should take effective steps to change that procedure — whatever may be the reasons for it — and that such postmasters or postmistresses in these country districts, who are willing and anxious to convey a message, as I know that the postmaster in this particular case was willing and anxious to do, should be enabled to do so, and should not be required by regulations to refuse such a message. Well, I shall leave that matter now.

The two points I wished to make were that there should be more facilities provided for people who want to listen to the radio, and that wireless should be installed, if possible, in everyone's house. As Senator Mulcahy has pointed out, they can turn it off if they do not wish to listen to it, and I think the Minister should consider the possibility of making it easier for people in ordinary country houses to have the radio installed. The second point I wished to make was in connection with sub-post offices in the country, where there is a telephonic system existing. In my opinion they should be allowed to take messages after the hours prescribed at present. Why these hours are prescribed, I do not know, but I think that these sub-postmasters or sub-postmistresses should be allowed to take a message after the present prescribed hours, and have it sent out in the ordinary way.

Mr. Foran

I do not propose to take up much time, but I should like to say that I think Senator O'Donnell did a good service when he mentioned the lack of attention that occurs when one dials "O" on the telephone. Like Senator O'Donnell, my experience is that it takes a long time to get service when you dial "O" in Dublin, and I hope the Minister will explain to us why that is so. We are told that in the case of sudden emergencies, such as fire, burglary, accidents, and so on, we should dial "O," and will get immediate attention, but my experience is that one generally has to wait for anything between ten and 15 minutes before one gets any attention. Now, I am sure that men like Senator O'Donnell or myself could do a lot of angry swearing in that time. I hope the Minister will be able to give us some information as to the reason for such delays.

Listening to the discussion here on wireless broadcasting, one would imagine that, if some of the ideas that have been put forward here were to be put into practice, the radio would become still more unpopular than it is to-day. I think it is a rather good idea, so far as many of the subscribers are concerned, that they have alternative stations to turn to, because if certain people think that they can dragoon our people into listening to programmes, whether Irish or not, they are making a big mistake, since it is open to the subscribers to use the facilities provided for them and to listen to any programme, whether it comes from London or any other place.

It must be remembered that a large portion of broadcasting is devoted to entertainment, and in most countries it is used for that purpose. Occasionally, of course, lectures, and so on, are sent out over the radio, but its main purpose is that of entertainment. Listening to some of the speakers here, however, one would imagine that the main purpose of the radio is the dissemination of certain types of propaganda, whether for educational purposes or otherwise, and that nothing else should be broadcast. I hope the Minister will not take such suggestions too seriously. I suggest that the chief thing that the people want is variety, and it would appear to me that we are not getting enough variety in our programmes. One could imagine, let us say, Senator Johnston, in the local "pub" or the local hall, trying to convince farm labourers that they were getting sufficient wages, but that is a different thing from putting forward such a subject through the means provided by wireless. You may say that that might be an educational subject, but the point is that it would only be of interest to the particular people concerned.

Mr. Hayes

Would it be believed?

Mr. Foran

Well, whether it would be believed or not, I hold that we should have greater variety in our wireless programmes. Senator O'Donnell also referred to the Abbey Players, and he more or less boasted about them, but might I suggest that there are other players in this country who are just as good as the Abbey Players? In that connection, I should like to point out that there is in existence in this city a large number of brass and reed bands. What encouragement has been given by our wireless authorities to these bands? Remember, these bands are almost entirely working-class bands, and are kept out of funds provided by the working-class people. A year or so ago, the R.D.S. featured one of these bands and paid them a good price for their performance, but the radio people did not even give them a show. In spite of the fact that a man wins a championship three or four times he hardly ever gets a show on the radio. I would like the Minister to explain that. Certainly on their ability alone they are entitled to get a show. There are features on our radio that I very much appreciate and would not miss if I could possibly help it and one of them is Question Time. Round about the country I think that is very good entertainment as we get to know the outlook of people in various parts of Ireland.

Development along those lines would make our radio very much more popular than it is to-day. Regarding Senator Honan's complaint that we have not enough radios—we cannot get them now — let us hope that in the near future with the development of the Shannon Scheme and the distribution of electricity in rural areas we will be able to give these people radios. As it is to-day, I do not think that they are very much entertainment, and I must say people are not missing a whole lot by not having the equipments.

Mrs. Concannon

One of the things that radio has brought home to us is the beauty of the speaking voice, its capacity for beauty. I was very pleased, indeed, with Senator Mulcahy's suggestion that Irish voices trained to give expression to the full beauty of the tongue should be heard on the radio; that there should be some opportunity for training such voices, and that those with a natural capacity should be discovered. It makes a very bad impression to hear rough voices and slurred voices, as if that was the natural way of speaking Irish. That is not so at all. It was unfortunate that perhaps people who had not ever learned to speak, or were never trained to speak should have been heard so frequently on the radio. It is delightful when one hears educated voices speaking Irish. I remember a woman in Galway with a very beautiful, natural voice who had a very refined way of speaking. She was a native Irish speaker. Some 30 years ago I remember the late Father Fitzgerald saying that if we wanted to revive Irish we should get all the people possible to listen to that woman. The suggestion made by Senator Mulcahy seems to me to be a very excellent one in that respect, and I do not wish to say anything more than to give it my hearty approval.

Minister for Posts and Telegraphs (Mr. Little)

The first thing I would like to say is to thank you for the way in which you have approached this debate. It has been extremely interesting to me. I am afraid I may not be able to deal with all the points that have been raised but I will try to deal with as many as I can, because on the whole it is only fair to say there has been constructive criticism and many valuable suggestions have been made. As to telephones, it must be remembered as I mentioned in another place, that owing to the shortage of supplies we cannot expand at the rate at which we would like. Together with that we have the fact that under the emergency conditions people have fallen back on the use of the telephone to a tremendous extent. I gave detailed figures in another place, and I need not go into them now, but in 1942 the number was actually recorded at about 44,000,000 calls. That was an increase of 2,000,000 in the year, so that our people have pretty fair difficulties to cope with. As a matter of fact we have actually day and night supervisors testing the telephones continuously and we keep records of their tests. I have got the records for the period of six days from the 1st of November to the 6th of November. It showed that the average delay on the telephone was only 12.2 seconds. That is not regarded as good, it is only regarded as fair. Anything under ten seconds is regarded as good, anything about 12 as fair and anything above 14 as not good.

Mr. O'Donnell

That is for dial "O".

Mr. Little

That is for dial everything. The Senator's difficulties must have been mechanically caused. If he had rung up the supervisor and reported the fault I think he would have found it was due to a mechanical defect. I can only just give you a picture of how these things are dealt with. Actually that is the standard that has been set and the close examination of the system that is constantly made. It is true that up to the present the operators working in this section were working without sufficient equipment. We are moving into better premises in Exchequer Street as soon as the work there is completed. Whereas we have now 14 operators, in the course of the near future we will employ at least 42 for "O" calls. With regard to Ardee, which probably Senator McGee would have mentioned, the average delay there is about half an hour, and that is due to a load on the lines. We are putting down two new lines which we hope in the near future to have in full working order.

There has been delay also on the lines all over the country due to the fact that people will hold the lines too long. We are trying to enforce a rule — we do not want to and would rather leave it to the discretion of the operators — making them speak only for six minutes. Since we did that there has been an improvement and there have not been so many delays in general in trunk calls. Then we are putting on an automatic reminder which will remind people of the time passing every three minutes. There have also been complaints about delays in the city kiosks, that people remain too long in them. In that case there will be an automatic cut-out after six minutes, so that if they want to ring up again they will have to put in another twopence or else think of their neighbours standing outside in the cold. We also have a daily maintenance examination. That is to say, we have linemen going round examining the kiosks. They go out of order often and sometimes they are wantonly damaged. They are watched as closely as possible. About 12 minutes delay would probably be due to a mechanical fault, and what the Senator should do would be to ring up the supervisor, that is to say, dial "O" and refer the fault to the supervisor. If you cannot get satisfaction write to the secretary of the Department and you will be treated with courtesy. Senator Crosbie referred to the courteous treatment given by telephone operators. It is only fair to mention that here, because our people are outside the circle of politics, and are very sensitive to public criticism. It is very fair to pay tribute to them when they have given good service. I think I have dealt with most of the matters raised in regard to the telephone service.

Mr. Honan

There was a point I raised about outside stations.

Mr. Little

Of course in small exchanges the hours are fixed from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., and, generally speaking, the number of subscribers and the traffic at a particular exchange determine the hours of telephone service there. We are examining proposals for an extension of the telephone service when the emergency is over but, beyond saying that the matter is under consideration, I do not want to hold out any false hopes. We must always have regard to the amount of money that is expended on these services, and all I can say at the moment is that we are examining the position, but the rule will always remain that the service will be determined by the amount of traffic. It is not fair to ask a sub-postmaster, who is paid only a small amount, to be on the job after 8 o'clock in the evening. There are places where you can get an all-night service but that is where it is justified by the volume of traffic.

Mr. Honan

I think 7 o'clock was the time at which I wanted to have the call made. I know that the man and his wife were ready and willing to give the service, but they were precluded from doing so owing to the rules.

Mr. Little

They are protected against any obligation to attend to calls after 8 p.m. It is not fair when they are not paid a higher salary that they should be asked to give a later service.

The first point raised in connection with the broadcasting service had reference to the quality of announcers' voices. I have been told very often by the present Director and the previous Director that it is extremely difficult to get a good quality voice for broadcasting. Hundreds of people were examined. It is astonishing how difficult it is to get voices suitable for the radio. The voices of people, which in ordinary conversation sound quite effective, blast or split or have other defects on the microphone, and the number of people who are suitable as announcers is very small indeed. Then they require other qualities as well. They must have the capacity to meet an emergency, and the nerve and experience to get over difficulties as they arise so that the requirements are fairly severe. We cannot hope to get the silver voices that some Senators would like.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

That concludes this portion of the debate. I understand the Minister for Industry and Commerce will not be here this evening, but we can go on with questions arising under the Department of Local Government and Public Health, with which the Minister for Finance, I understand, will deal. I now call Senator Kingsmill Moore on the subject matter of which he has given notice.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

I wish to call the attention of this House to a certain Emergency Powers Order made by the Minister for Local Government on the 19th October of this year. It is entitled the Emergency Powers (Slaughter of Animals) Order, 1943. It is very short, it is very simple, and apparently it is very innocent. The whole of the operative part consists of two and a half lines which say that the operation of sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1935, shall be suspended as regards animals generally. What could apparently be more innocuous than that? But, as a matter of fact, it entirely emasculates the whole of that Act by taking away the one section, the only protective section, around which the whole of the rest of the Act is built.

The Act which it so emasculates is one which should be very dear to this House, because it took its origin in a private Bill introduced into this House in 1933 by Senators O'Farrell and Sam Brown. I confess that personally I also have a definite interest in it, having drafted that private Bill and knowing that all the preparatory work of obtaining the facts, of collecting statistics, of corresponding with the various foreign countries which had various similar schemes, and of briefing those who proposed the Bill, had been done by a lady with whom I am honoured to have more than a nodding acquaintance.

That Act passed this House as a Bill without a single division, having been sent to a special committee which took evidence, examined documents, had the benefit of expert testimony and reported favourably. Having passed this House without a division, it went to the Dáil and found so much favour that, in the words of the Vice-President, the Government decided to adopt that Bill in principle, to expand it and amplify it, and bring it in as the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1935, and again, there was not a single division or a single dissentient voice while that Bill was passed through the Dáil; and although when it came back to the Seanad, there were a couple of divisions on amendments, the Act passed again without a dissentient voice. It was a remarkable instance of violent agreement between opposing political Parties, and I may say it gave a great deal of pleasure, not only to myself but to a large number of people in Ireland, to see that in this country where Party strife occasionally runs a bit high, all Parties and every individual of each Party and the leaders of all Parties had, almost for the first time, joined together in order to pass an Act giving to our servants, the animals, the small boon of a merciful death, because the provisions of that Act were to secure that all animals slaughtered in slaughter houses must be killed by what the Act termed "a mechanical instrument" but which is more usually known as a "humane killer"

In 1935 that Act was passed — it did not come into force for a short while — but that Act, the product of the agreement of all Parties, has been swept away by the annihilation of the central section by this four-line Order of the Minister for Local Government. And what is more remarkable, that Order made by the Minister in the privacy of his office, and not printed for a month, although styled an Emergency Powers Order, has not been presented either to the Dáil or to the Seanad. Since the making of that Order, the Seanad has sat twice and the Dáil has sat continuously each week, but neither as a statutory presentation, nor as a voluntary presentation, has that Order been put before or tabled for the benefit of either House.

One would imagine, Sir, that that was an oversight but I am informed that it is not an oversight, and that the Minister for Local Government puts forward the claim that he is enabled to annul an Act, either in whole or in part, without informing in the usual way either House that he has so done, and in a manner which prevents either House from passing the usual resolution to annul the statutory Order. In other words, not only has the Legislature surrendered its powers to the Executive, but the Legislature of this country has no power whatsoever to deal with the repeal of an Act done by a Minister in his study. May I explain how that claim is founded, because the first point which I am anxious to emphasise to this House is the Constitutional issue?

In 1939, the Oireachtas passed the Emergency Powers Act. That was an Act meant to have a limited scope for the purpose of dealing with topics which might arise in an emergency, and the governing section said that the Government might when they thought fit make, by Order, such provisions as were necessary or expedient for securing the public safety or the preservation of the State, or for the maintenance of public order, or for the provision and control of supplies and services essential to the life of the community. It seems a little bit difficult on the face of it to say how an Order abolishing humane slaughter for animals comes under that general broad provision. But the next sub-section, obviously meant to be supplementary, gives to the Government the power to suspend the operations of or amend or apply any enactment for the time being in force — a power subsidiary to the main purpose of the Act. However, it was not to be expected that this House or the Dáil was going to give up its power of control of legislation, and so it took power in Section 9 to the effect that if any such Order was made it must be tabled as soon as possible before each of the two Houses of the Oireachtas, and if a resolution was passed within 21 sitting days disapproving of that, the Order should be null and void. In other words, each House took care to keep some control over the vicious principle of legislation by Order.

But there was another sub-section in the Act which enabled the Government to make an Emergency Order delegating any of its powers to a Minister — again, a sub-section obviously meant to deal with small and trivial things. That sub-section has been used by the Government in a way which I submit to be fundamentally unconstitutional, because the Government has availed itself of that sub-section to delegate to a Minister powers in such a way that when the powers are used by the Minister they cannot be questioned in the House.

I understand that the particular Order was not in the Library last Monday.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

And I understand that it is not yet in the Library as an official presentation to either House. I so inquired this morning. I was told that it came in what might be called a commercial way rather than an official presentation. Whether it cost the Library 2d. I do not know, but I do know that it was not sent to the Library as part of an official presentation to either House.

That is the first matter which I have to complain of. The attitude which I understand to be taken up by the Minister may be one which is right in law or may be one which is wrong in law. As a lawyer, I do not want either to give an opinion or to discuss it at the present moment. But I do want to call attention to the fact, because it is a fact, that Acts can be repealed in such a manner that there is no official notification to either House and no legal opportunity for either House to do or say anything which would annul that repeal.

I pass from that with the remark that if that can be done, any faint pretence at a democratic system being in force must be abandoned. If the Legislature cannot control the Acts either of the Executive or of a member of the Executive, then there is no such thing in this country as a democratic system. The second point that I wish to bring before the House is the Order itself and the reasons for which it is alleged to have been made. It has been alleged, and I understand that the reason which would be given by the Minister if he were here would be, that there was a shortage of ammunition for the use of humane killers in general. The Minister has his officials and his inspectors, and no doubt can obtain a great deal of information, but on this point I have no hesitation in saying as a result of the inquiries that I have been able to make in person during the past three days that the Minister has been misinformed, and that if that is the reason why this Order has been made it should be repealed to-morrow. May I give to this House the true facts, and I am willing to give to the Minister or to this House my authority for them? It is obviously impossible for a private individual in the course of three days to inquire into the exact stocks of ammunition for all the types of humane killer which have been authorised by the Minister for Agriculture.

But I think I have been able almost to exhaust that question in regard to what may be considered to be the standard weapon, namely, the Cash Captive Bolt Pistol. There are about four or five of those in use for every one of any other kind. So I am informed by the dealers. It is in use in the abattoir in Dublin, and was the particular killer which was always referred to in the course of the passage of the legislation.

The central agents in Dublin have had about 500,000 added to their stock of cartridges in the course of the year. One retail dealer in Dublin at the present moment has 50,000 cartridges. I have succeeded, with the assistance of other people, in getting in touch with the retail dealers in Limerick, Cork, Clonmel, Waterford and Sligo, and all of them have written to say that there has never been any shortage of ammunition for these humane killers, and that they have plenty in stock. The makers of these humane killers in England have written to say that there are 1,000,000 cartridges which can be sent here when required, and that they can supply humane killers also, to any extent to which they may be needed in Ireland. I understand that these people have already got an undertaking from the British Board of Trade to permit them to send any quantity that may be required. So far as I know, 24 of these humane killers came over here this week, and 39 before that.

That is the position with regard to the humane killer, and so far as that is concerned, the facts I have put before the House show that the Minister for Local Government and Public Health must be wrong when he asserts that there is a shortage of ammunition which compels him to abolish the use of the humane killer. I am also aware that there are other humane killers on the market, so that, even if there should be a shortage in one case, it should be possible to make up for that by the use of other humane killers and the ammunition for them. I have made some inquiries with regard to that—perhaps not so thorough as in the other case — and I find that supplies are available in connection with the Temple-Cox and the Greener. According to my information, there is a sufficient supply of cartridges for these various types of killers available to supply our needs in this country. The only shortage of ammunition is in the case of the German humane killer, known as the Schermer—the ammunition for which is made in Hamburg — although an offer to make it in Ireland was made by Irish Metal Industries and by British Imperial Chemicals, which was turned down here, I understand. In other words, there is a shortage in connection with only one type of humane killer, among all the types that are generally used, and I am sorry to say that I cannot see why a shortage of ammunition in the case of one of these humane killers — and that killer not the most universally used — should justify the Minister in repealing an Order which made it compulsory on all abattoirs or slaughter houses in Eire to use humane killers.

This is an example — and one which I think this House may well take to heart — of what happens when a Minister, sitting in his study, can make an Order, which is not presented to either House of the Oireachtas, and which, accordingly, neither House of the Oireachtas has had an opportunity of criticising except, fortunately, when the Estimates come up for consideration. If the Minister had made an Order to the effect that the people who were possessors of this particular type of humane killer could not be prosecuted for, let us say, three months or six months, until another type of killer was procured, I could understand that, because I realise that this is a complicated matter, but that is not the kind of Order which is being made. The Order that is being made is an abrogation, in my opinion, of the Statute which was passed by this Oireachtas, and which occupied the attention to the Oireachtas for quite a long time. That Act has now been in operation for a number of years. It was passed by universal acclamation both inside and outside the Houses of the Oireachtas, and it is now being repealed in what I would describe as a hole-and-corner way, and on information which, I hope, the House will be satisfied, is erroneous. Not alone that, but I hope the House will be satisfied that this Order is entirely unnecessary.

I mentioned that the earlier Order had been tabled.

The Seanad adjourned at 9 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, November 25th, 1943.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 24 Nov 1943