Appropriation (No. 2) Bill, 1943 (Certified Money Bill)—Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Dr. Hannigan

I listened last night with great interest to Senator Kingsmill Moore's condemnation of the manner in which certain provisions of the Slaughter of Animals Act have been revoked by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. Whilst it is not my intention to attempt to improve on the magnificent case made by the Senator, at the same time there are one or two observations which I should like to make. May I say, as a member new to this House and as one unversed in its mode of procedure, that I was very much impressed by the arrangement for the conduct of this debate — an arrangement whereby Senators who intended to raise matters in the debate were required to give due notice so as to enable the responsible or appropriate Minister to attend where matters involving his Department were concerned? I thought, therefore, that it was unfortunate, having regard to the fact that this arrangement existed, and that there was only one matter on the agenda relating to the Department of Local Government and Public Health, that the Minister was not present. I regard it as more unfortunate still that in the Minister's absence this House had not the advantage of the presence of his Parliamentary Secretary. I suppose the Minister's absence was unavoidable because we can all understand that just as the lives of all of us are affected by Emergency Orders, so also is the life of the Minister affected.

Now, as to the Order itself, what is the position? Surely the position is one which this House must view with very grave concern having regard to the views put forward by an eminent lawyer and member of this House as to the constitutionality of the Minister's action. In revoking certain provisions of this Slaughter of Animals Act, 1935, by a mere stroke of the pen the Minister has amended vital provisions of an Act, which was passed, I understand, unanimously by both Houses of the Oireachtas, without as much as "by your leave." This Order which has been made differs from other Orders made under the Emergency Powers Act inasmuch as apparently it cannot be annulled and that no opportunity is given to either House or to members of either House of the Oireachtas to table a motion for its annulment. Now if the Minister deems this matter of sufficient importance to reply to the points made, I wonder will he tell this House what circumstances, or what particular set of circumstances, compelled or induced him to make this Order?

Will he tell us what state of emergency existed which made it necessary for him to alter the provisions of this Act? Will he not only tell us what emergency existed, but will he also tell us what was the duration of that emergency preceding the Order, so that we may know whether the Minister was in a position to amend this Act in another way, namely, by the democratic procedure of introducing an amending Bill and giving members of both Dáil and Seanad the opportunity of examining his proposals? Now, in this country generally, and in this city in particular, the people abhor anything in the nature of cruelty to animals. I recall the fact that only last year, widespread indignation was caused in this city because of the massed slaughter, under Government contract, of certain animals, and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, a society always vigilant and on the alert in relation to the performance of any act of cruelty against dumb animals, saw fit to investigate all the circumstances of the matter.

I understand that the amendment of this Slaughter of Animals Act, 1935, will, in fact, involve the slaughter of animals in a manner which will involve cruelty. I understand the effect of amending this Act will be that a method of slaughter, universally regarded as the best method, the method least likely to inflict pain, will be discarded for an inferior method. That, surely, is a matter which should cause us some concern. If the Minister has a good and sound reason for amending this Act, I hope we will hear it, but whatever reason the Minister will give for amending this Act in the manner which he has chosen, I am sure this House will be gravely concerned by the fact that a most precious right is being invaded or snatched away.

I hope this House will not regard this matter as a trivial one. It is a matter of paramount importance, and whilst it is unlikely that this debate will succeed in inducing the Minister to mend his hand in the matter, if, at least, it succeeds in deterring the Minister from repeating the procedure which he has adopted in the matter of amending this Act, then a good day's work will have been done.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I do not like the language of exaggeration and I have an equal dislike for over-emphasis in statement, but I do not hesitate to say that no question involving so important a principle as this could, in my opinion, come before this House. The principle involved is the one of continuance of Parliamentary democratic government and nothing less. It is a Constitutional principle, to which if we do not pay a sufficient regard, we may find we have lost our hard-won democratic freedom.

In brief, an Act carefully considered and passed by this Oireachtas, has been hamstrung, or, I might say, poleaxed or inhumanly slaughtered by what amounts to the ukase of an executive Minister. The original Bill was introduced into the Seanad at the end of 1933, having, as he told us yesterday, been drafted by my friend Senator Kingsmill Moore. It was introduced in this House by two men who should be held in high honour. Senator John T. O'Farrell and Senator Samuel Lombard Brown, who not only graced this Assembly but would grace any Parliament of which they were members. After an informative Second Reading debate, the Bill was referred to a Select Committee. Unofficially, I attended that Committee because of the intrinsic interest of the Bill, and the competent manner in which it was being dealt with. I well recollect the circumstances. The keystone of the whole question was the method of slaughtering animals for food. The consensus of expert opinion — the overwhelming consensus of expert opinion —was that what is called the humane killer was the best method.

Now, the committee spent more than 15 hours in taking the evidence of witnesses, and in deliberating in private on that evidence. Among the witnesses were: the Principal of the Royal Veterinary College of Ireland, the Chief Veterinary Inspector of the Dublin Corporation, the Deputy Commissioner of the Gárda Síochána, the head of the Veterinary Department of the Corporation of Belfast, the Professor of Zoology in Trinity College, Dublin; the Manager of Irish Co-operative Meat, Limited; the Chief Rabbi, the President of the Dublin Victuallers' Association and a number of others, including farmers with experience of the slaughter of animals. The Bill was passed by this House and sent to the Dáil. It was there adopted as a Government measure, preserving all its essential sections, and, as such, it was sent back to the Seanad and became law on the 12th December, 1935, as the "Slaughter of Animals Act". The keystone of the Act — which was the keystone of the discussion in our Select Committee — is Section 51, which reads:

"Subject to the provisions of this section, no person shall in any slaughterhouse slaughter, or render unconscious for the purpose of slaughter, any animal of any particular kind by any means or in any manner otherwise than by means of an instrument which is an approved instrument in relation to animals of that particular kind and is in good working order and is used in the approved manner."

There are two other sub-sections ——"savings", as they are called in law — for people of the Jewish and Mohammedan faiths, whose religion demands the killing of animals for food in a certain manner. This sub-section has been poleaxed by executive instrument without reference to this Oireachtas, which passed the Act. It has been poleaxed in such a way — I think designedly—as to prevent either House of the Oireachtas from taking cognisance of it or doing anything effective about it. I propose to show how, in my opinion, this came about; but first I want to say a few words about delegated legislation, of which this is a typical—or perhaps I should say an untypical — specimen. I hope it is untypical of what will happen in the future.

It is necessary to say, something about this very difficult topic because I was surprised to notice, from an interruption last night, that the meaning of delegated legislation is not thoroughly understood in certain quarters in this House. The increasing complexity of modern life renders a certain amount of delegated legislation inevitable. It is an evil, but it is a necessary evil. What happens generally is this: Parliament draws the rough outlines of a Bill. That Bill becomes an Act, and power is given in that Act to an executive Minister, by statutory rule or order, to fill in the outlines which have been left unfilled by the Legislature. Perhaps I may be permitted to read, in further explanation and criticism of this matter, what I myself wrote on the subject shortly before the war:—

"The growth of this delegated legislation in the post-war period"— that is, since the last war

—"representing as it does an enlargement of the bureaucracy at the expense of Parliament is a phenomenon which has excited apprehension in Great Britain and other States of the British Commonwealth among those who have a proper regard for democratic institutions. The abuses inseparable from it have been trenchantly exposed by the present Lord Chief Justice of England, Lord Hewart,"—

now dead

—"in his book The New Despotism, published in 1929, and the matter has been the subject of an inquiry by a Select Committee of the House of Commons which reported in 1932.”

Sir Lyndon Macassey, a distinguished Irishman, and the doyen of the Parliamentary Bar in England, wrote as follows about what actually happens in the Parliament of Westminster and it is, too often, what happens here also:

"Government Bills are forced through Parliament under the pressure of the Government Whips. There is little time for discussion of their provisions either in the House or in Committee. Legislation is passed in the most general terms and left to some Government Department to apply as it thinks fit under machinery or rules to be made by it. The Cabinet is, therefore, in a position, through its member at the head of a Government Department, to embark on a particular policy which has never, in any detail, been discussed in Parliament or communicated to the public. If the action of the Department is challenged in the House, the Government can say, as has been done, that the action of the Department is fully within the power conferred on it by the Legislature."

The safeguards provided in connection with this delegated legislation are, in general, of two kinds. One — the more rare of the two — consists of a clause in the parent Act that the Statutory Rules and Orders made thereunder shall require positive approval by both Houses of the Oireachtas. More commonly, unfortunately, it is provided that, unless a resolution of annulment be passed by either House, the Statutory Rule or Order becomes effective. In the particular case we are discussing, something quite unprecedented in my experience has come about. This is not a case of Parliament drawing the outlines of a picture and allowing a Minister of State to fill in the completed picture. Here we have a picture completely drawn—every line of it—by the Oireachtas, and the Minister, with one stroke of his brush, obliterates the central figure in the picture. That, as I have said, is unprecedented in my experience.

Let us examine now, the legal aspect of this matter so as to see how it has come about. The fons et origo mali is the Emergency Powers Act, 1939. That was passed on the 3rd December, 1939 —two days after the German Reich had begun to make war on Poland and on the very day the United Kingdom declared war on Germany. The effective section is Section 2. Sub-section (1) of that section states:—

"The Government may, whenever and so often as they think fit, make by Order, in this Act referred to as an Emergency Order, such provisions as are in the opinion of the Government necessary or expedient for securing the public safety"

Mark these points,

"or the preservation of the State or the maintenance of public order or for the provision and control of supplies and services essential to the life of the community."

Then sub-section (2) says:—

"Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing sub-section of this section, the Government may do by an Emergency Order all or any of the following things, that is to say..."

You get a whole series of items, covering various aspects of the situation. The last one of all is perhaps the most important and is the one that is most in point here.

"(p) Suspend the operation of or amend or apply with or without modification any enactment other than this Act for the time being in force or any instrument made under any such enactment."

Then you have sub-section (3) following that. This is also in point in the debate in view of what has happened: —

"Whenever the Government makes an Emergency Order the Government may in lieu of making provision for or doing any particular thing in or by such Emergency Order authorise or empower by such Emergency Order a Minister or any other person specified or indicated in such an Emergency Order to make the said provision or to do the said thing, and for that purpose subject to such conditions and consents, if any, as may be specified in such an Emergency Order to make, grant or issue such instruments and give such directions as shall appear to such Minister or person to be necessary or proper to the said purpose."

The bones of that is that the Government may amend or repeal any particular Act of Parliament. More than that: the Government may, by Emergency Order, delegate these powers to a particular Minister or other person. There are, of course, safeguards and the safeguard comes in Section 9: —

"Every Emergency Order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if a resolution annulling such Order is passed by either such House within the next subsequent 21 days on which such House has sat after such Order is laid before it, such Order shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under such Order."

That is what we call common form.

The powers given in this Emergency Powers Act, 1939, were necessarily and admittedly very wide powers indeed, very drastic powers to give to an Executive, and of course could only be justified by the existence of a state of war, even though Ireland was not implicated in that war. Naturally, when the Bill came before the Dáil the matter of safeguards was raised. The Taoiseach said on the 2nd September, 1939, (Dáil debates, volume 77, col. 6):

"Another question which was raised was that under this general power of suspension of certain enactments the Government might, for example, suspend the old age pensions or something of that sort. Of course, I need hardly say that there is no intention on the part of the Government to use its powers in such an arbitrary way."

When introducing the Second Stage of the Bill the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Mr. Lemass, said on the same day (in the same volume, col. 26), (paragraph (p) is the paragraph enabling Acts of the Oireachtas to be abrogated or modified):

"The object of paragraph (p) is to suspend the operation of, or amend or apply with or without qualification any enactment for the time being in force or any instrument made under any such enactment. There are many minor enactments, the operation of which cannot be proceeded with in case of war. Very many of them would come under the Department of Industry and Commerce and it is necessary therefore to have such powers to suspend the operation of such enactments or to amend such an enactment for the time being. Some fear has been expressed that that particular power might be abused by the Government for the purpose of introducing special or extra powers with regard to social legislation or for making changes in the law which have no relation to the state of emergency that exists. Assurances have been given by the Taoiseach that that is not intended."

Now, Sir, I would like to say that I have no doubt whatever that when the assurances were given they were sincerely intended by the Taoiseach and by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. This kind of assurance is so often given in other countries when the Government is being conceded arbitrary powers. The Government may be sincere, but appetite grows by what it feeds on, and what it feeds on is power. It has happened elsewhere and there is no saving grace in Ireland to prevent its happening here. It is, in fact, happening here.

The Taoiseach said again on the same day (in the same volume, column 171):

"Very largely you will have to trust the Government with these powers, and there is no use in trying by a little amendment here and there to restrict these powers. In the powers that are given loopholes can easily be found by any Government that is disposed to act improperly."

I suggest, Sir, that in this case the Government or Minister of Government, who is not here to-day and who should be here, has been acting improperly and has found his appropriate loophole.

Now I come to the Orders with which we are concerned. The first of them is the Statutory Rules and Orders, 1942, No. 556, entitled the Emergency Powers No. 212 Order, 1942. It is a very short one and I propose to read it in full: —

"Emergency Powers (No. 212) Order, 1942.

The Government in exercising the powers conferred on them by the Emergency Powers Act, 1939, (No. 28 of 1939) and of every and any other power them in this behalf enabling, hereby order as follows: (1) this Order will be cited as the Emergency Powers (No. 212) Order, 1942; (2) the Minister for Local Government and Public Health may from time to time, by Order, suspend the operation of sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1935 (No. 45 of 1935) either as regards animals generally or as regards animals of a particular kind. Given under the Seal of the Government this 19th day of August, 1942.

(Signed) Eamon de Valéra,

Taoiseach."

That is what I call an Order in posse. It does not direct anything to be done. It does not come within the letter (p) of sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the parent Act.

Sub-section (3) of the Act enables the Minister to do something —"the Minister for Local Government and Public Health may" do so and so. In other words, the Minister may wipe out the corner-stone of this carefully drafted and universally approved Slaughter of Animals Act. Under Section 9 of the Act that Order had of course to be tabled. It was laid on the Table of the Dáil on the 14th October, 1942, on the Table of the Seanad on 23rd September, 1942. Within 21 sitting days of that event it would have been open to either House to pass a resolution annulling the Order. That is the safeguard. If such a motion had been put down and if it had been passed, the Order would have been annulled. Why was that not done? Well, Sir, as my friend said yesterday, this is a permissive thing as far as the public was concerned. Nothing whatever happened as a result of it. There was no particular reason to suppose that anything would happen as a result, and there was every reason to suppose that nothing would happen. In other words, that if a second Statutory Order were made by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health doing the thing which he was enabled to do by the Order of 1942, it would come before us. As my friend Senator Kingsmill Moore said, there is no good shouting before you are hurt. Apart from that, there is what I have termed elsewhere the incuriosity of legislators. Papers are laid on the Table of the House and unless one's attention is specially drawn to them one does nothing about the matter, and often one is not aware that anything important has occurred.

I do not go into the legal point as to whether the Order I have read out is a legally valid Order. I think it is a matter for dispute from the lawyer's point of view whether it is in fact valid, because it does not actually effect anything. It merely enables an Executive Minister to effect something. The 21 days within which the Order could be annulled in the Dáil ran out on the 11th March, 1943, and in the Seanad on the 11th February. 1943. The Minister for Local Government and Public Health, in accordance with the usual procedure, was officially informed of that fact by the Librarian of Leinster House on the subsequent day in each case, on the 12th February and on the 12th March respectively. After that, of course, the Order could no longer be annulled.

Some months after the expiry, namely, on the 19th day of October, some eight months later, the Minister for Local Government makes his Order. You may ask why was it not made earlier, why was it not made immediately after the Order made in August, 1942? I suggest to you the reason may well be this, that if the second Order, Mr. MacEntee's Order had been made while the 21-day period was running in either House, that is before the 11th March or 11th February, 1943, respectively, it would not have been too late for some member in either House to put down a motion of annulment. Then, again, nothing was done until October. It is possible that, with a general election in the offing, the campaign that some of us would certainly have undertaken in the country, on humanitarian grounds, if we knew that this wicked step was to be taken, would have done a good deal of political harm to the Government; and so they held their hand. Then, after the election, it is this Order that is proposed. It is quite short and I am going to read it:

"STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS.

1943. No. 342.

The Minister for Local Government and Public Health, in exercise of the powers conferred on him by the Emergency Powers (No. 212) Order, 1942, hereby orders as follows, that is to say: —

1. The operation of sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1935 (No. 45 of 1935), shall be suspended as regards animals generally.

2. This Order may be cited as the Emergency Powers (Slaughter of Animals) Order, 1943.

GIVEN under the Official Seal of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health this nineteenth day of October, One Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty-three.

(Signed) Seán MacEntee,

Minister for Local Government and Public Health."

That is the Order in esse, the other was the Order in posse. That second Order was not tabled here for statutory presentation in the Seanad. As I understand, it even was sent to the Clerk of the House for tabling as a non-statutory presentation. The view was evidently taken by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health that this Order is not caught by the provisions of Section 9 of the Act of 1939, that is to say, it is not an emergency Order within the meaning of Section 9. So this House is not officially cognisant of it and cannot annul it; and the Dáil, of course, cannot annul it. Well, Sir, objection was taken here yesterday to the use of the word “chicanery” in that connection. All I have to say is that, if one is not allowed to use the accepted vocabulary of polemics in its proper connotation, the sooner we shut up the better, and you may abolish the Seanad a second time. Actually, you might abolish it at the same time as you abolish proportional representation. There is no good in making two bites at a pineapple. That is the loophole they found — that they did not table the Order for statutory presentation: on the ground, I presume, that it is not an emergency Order within the meaning of the statute but is perhaps an “instrument” or “direction” within the meaning of sub-section (3) which I read out to you a while ago Personally, I think that is legally quite untenable. It is called on its face an Emergency Powers Order, and under Section 9 of the Act it should be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. Certainly, that is a matter in connection with which I cannot imagine the Government having right on its side, from the legal point of view, at any rate. Of course, the object in not presenting the matter to us was to withhold from us the power that is given under Section 15, and to prevent anything being done about this matter of the humane killer until it was too late. So much for the legal end of the question.

As to the merits, I must confess that I am not properly seized of this matter, except from what I heard from Senator Kingsmill Moore's speech last night, but it would appear to me that there is not a real lack of ammunition for these humane killers, and that the only shortage of ammunition is in connection with one form of humane killer which is manufactured in the City of Hamburg, in Germany. Now, the humane killer has been in use for a number of years in this country, and the adoption of its use marked a definite advance in our humanitarian feeling towards our brothers, the animals. A country's civilisation may be judged — and often rightly judged — by its humanitarian conduct, and I may say, as one who has travelled through Europe, that one often notices that the less civilised a country is, the less kindly is their treatment of animals, and that the more civilised a country is, the more kindly is its treatment of animals. I am quite satisfied, from my general experience, that the standard of kindly treatment of animals in this country is quite reasonably high in comparison with the treatment of animals in other countries in Europe.

Now, there are certain questions that I should like to ask the Minister. I think it is due to the House that answers should be given in this connection, because a great deal of apprehension, and justifiable apprehension, has been caused by this issue that has been raised by my friend Senator Kingsmill Moore. First of all, what is the legal interpretation by the Government's officers, or the Attorney-General, on this question as to whether the Statutory Rule and Order, of 1943, is caught by Section 9 of the Act of 1939; secondly, if it is not deemed to be so caught, why not? and, also, whether, before the Order was made, any inquiries were instituted with a view to finding out whether wholesale or retail dealers in such ammunition had sufficient stocks in hand? In other words, were steps taken to ascertain the justifiability or otherwise of the Order? I suggest that the fuller the disclosure that can be made by the Minister in regard to this matter, the better it will be so far as the safeguarding of the institutions of the Oireachtas is concerned. However, it is the principle, rather than the matter of kindliness to animals, that really matters here.

It is the principle, rather than the question of the instruments to be used, that is transcendent in connection with this matter, and I think that we should all bear this in mind. Governments have a habit of acquiring an increased appetite for power, and there is no doubt that the power that has been given to this Government—an almost unbridled power for nearly 12 years — has tended to make it despotic and overwhelming, and to tempt it to make Orders, such as this, without any reference to the Oireachtas. That has happened in other countries, and from similar causes; and I am afraid that, given the same temptation, our Government might be drawn into pursuing the disastrous courses that have been pursued by despotic governments in other countries. Now, in other countries, where this evil of delegated legislation has transgressed beyond due bounds, it has not seldom happened that a vigorous opposition, or a vigorous back bench, has been able to check such a tendency, and I appeal to members of the Government Party in this House to ponder on this question: whether it is more important that a particular Minister should be protected, where he has done something objectionable from a Parliamentary point of view, or whether our Parliamentary traditions should be maintained in full vigour?

I beg every member of this House to ponder over that question, because it is a question which seriously affects every member of this House, both from the point of view of the principle involved and of its particular application. Every member of this House should ask himself whether, having due respect for the high dignity of the vocation of politics and for the traditions of this House, he will agree that this matter must be, and shall be, fully investigated.

Mr. O'Donovan

As one who has been associated with, and supervising, the slaughter of animals in the City of Dublin for over 20 years, and whose duty, since the passing of the Slaughter of Animals Act in 1935, was to supervise the slaughter of animals within the City of Dublin, I wish to say a few words in this debate. I am not going to touch, in any detail, on the legal points that were raised by Senators Kingsmill Moore and O'Sullivan, but I should like to give to the House some of the practical experiences of one who has been trying to supervise the slaughter of animals in the City of Dublin, and, especially, the views of one who, as a representative of the Veterinary Medical Association, can say that we did all in our power to promote the Act which was passed in 1935, and which, as Senator Kingsmill Moore has pointed out, was originally initiated in a previous Seanad.

Now, I cannot give the eulogies on that Act as it was passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas. Nevertheless, I think it was a good Act, and I have a grievance with the Department of Local Government and Public Health as to the manner in which they promulgated this Order—or, rather, I have a grievance with the Minister himself, if you like, because it was in his name that the Order was made.

I should like to explain my personal reason for the events of this year. Apparently, from the legal point of view, an Emergency Order, No. 212, was made in 1942. Now, that Order was made at a time when there was a great scarcity of ammunition, and we found great difficulty in trying to enforce the regulations contained in the provisions of the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1935, during that period. It is news to me now to learn that once 21 sitting days have passed, such an Order cannot be annulled. I thought it would be possible to bring a notice before the House to annul the Order but, apparently, that is not so. However, the period of scarcity of ammunition that existed at that time passed, but I cannot agree with Senator Kingsmill Moore and the other Senator that, at the present moment, there is no scarcity of ammunition for the Cash Captive Bolt or other types of humane killer, or gun, as it is commonly called. Not one of these can be got in Dublin to-day. I am making that definite statement, because I know that the Corporation of Dublin has been trying to get them, but has not been able to do so. I can say, from my own knowledge, that if they could get them, they would be glad to take even double the amount.

Now, that is a plain statement of fact so far as the City of Dublin is concerned, and I suppose that it would also apply throughout the country generally; because it must be remembered that a vast number of animals are now being slaughtered for export purposes as well as for the supply of the home market and that in itself is an inducement to the manufacturers to supply the instrument with all possible speed. Senator Kingsmill Moore mentioned that there were 50,000 cartridges available.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

50,000 in Garnett's and 500,000 with other central agents.

Mr. O'Donovan

I merely wish to point out that 50,000 would be only a drop in the ocean, because there are 2,000 cattle and 1,000 sheep killed every week in the abattoir. In one day alone there were 600 cattle slaughtered in the abattoir. The scarcity, however, is not so much of the ammunition as of the instruments. The instruments are not up to standard, and they are quite easily broken. That is probably due to a deterioration in the material used in their manufacture. Do not take it that I am not wholeheartedly in favour of the enforcement of the Act, because I was a member of a deputation to the Department of Local Government at the time the Act was under consideration. The deputation put forward amendments to the Bill, as it was at that time, which, unfortunately, were not embodied in it.

I should like to detain the House for a few moments to point out some of the omissions from the Act which make it very difficult to enforce. First of all, the term "slaughter" is not defined. Neither is any definition given of the phrase, "rendering unconscious for the purpose of slaughter". When we took cases to court, and the legal minds on the bench proceeded to consider the evidence we gave, there was a distinct difficulty in ascertaining whether "rendering unconscious for the purpose of slaughter" was a different process from slaughtering. The net result was that it was held that the phrase, "rendering unconscious for the purpose of slaughter", bore the same meaning as slaughtering. The man who uses a humane killer, which is really a mechanical pole-axe, renders the animal unconscious for the purpose of slaughter. That is one of the phrases in the Act. But he actually slaughters the animal because the animal will not recover from the use of that instrument. The bench gave a decision that it was only people who use the gun that need be licensed, and that the person who subsequently bled the animal need not be licensed.

I come then to the difficulty created by the present Order, which does away with the obligation, for the time being, I hope, of using any mechanical instrument. That decision of the court reduced the number of people who should be licensed to practically one-third or one-fourth of the number we thought should be licensed. We thought that the wording of the Act might be interpreted as meaning that every person who either used the gun or subsequently used the knife in bleeding the animal, was participating in the slaughter. That was one of the defects or mistakes in the Act, that it only required that the person who rendered the animal unconscious for the purpose of slaughter need be licensed.

Viewed from one standpoint, that is reasonable enough because the greatest amount of cruelty, if there is any cruelty, is inflicted on the animal, if a person is not careful, before it is rendered unconscious. Once an animal is rendered unconscious, the subsequent bleeding is only a secondary consideration. Our difficulty will arise in dealing with these people who use only the knife because if these subsequent clauses of the Act are left in force, we shall have to try to get these people to take out a licence for slaughtering, and I am afraid we shall not succeed in getting them to do it. Some of us already have experience of the difficulty in getting money from tradesmen who have to pay 5/- for the licence. The Act has to be enforced through the local authority. The use of the humane instrument cannot be made compulsory at present because the instruments are not available. That applies to the Temple-Cox or rather to the Cash Captive Bolt as well as to the German instrument. I think there was only one German instrument in use. The ammunition required was of different sizes and the use of that instrument was negligible. I want to stress that it is really the instruments that are scarce rather than the ammunition. Such being the case, I presume the Local Government Department had only to suspend compulsory provisions which could not be enforced.

I come now to the manner in which the Department did that. The first intimation sent to any local authority was dated the 15th November, 1943, and it arrived at the offices of the local authorities on the 16th November. It was sent out from the Department of Local Government and Public Health and was signed by the Secretary of the Department. In that circular the Secretary stated:—

"I am directed by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to inform you that he has had under consideration representations made to him as to difficulties experienced by sanitary authorities in enforcing the provisions of Section 15 of the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1935, by reason of shortage of supplies of approved instruments and ammunition therefore, due to conditions arising out of the present emergency and in pursuance of the Emergency Powers (No. 212) Order, 1942, he made an Order dated 19th October, 1943, suspending the operation of the Act as regards animals generally."

That was the first intimation we received, practically a month later, on the 15th November, that the Order was made on the 19th October. The letter went on:—

"The Order is being printed and a copy will be issued to the sanitary authority in due course. The Order legalises the stunning or slaughtering of animals in a slaughterhouse otherwise than by means of an approved instrument. It should be understood, however, that the other provisions of the Act which have for their object the prevention of cruelty to animals in a slaughterhouse and the securing of their proper treatment therein prior to slaughter remain in full force. The Order does not, of course, prohibit the continued use of approved instruments, and it is suggested that this fact might be brought to the notice of slaughterers who possess supplies of ammunition for such instruments."

I might repeat that that last paragraph has my wholehearted approval. So far as Dublin is concerned up to the present, I think no animal is being slaughtered without the use of the approved instrument. I am afraid that if conditions continue as they are, and the instruments go out of order, private butchers will not be in a position to replace them until they become more plentiful. That is why I appeal to the Minister to take all possible steps to obtain a further supply of these instruments, so that the clause of the Act we are discussing could be reinstated in our legislation, because, as Senator Kingsmill Moore said, it really emasculates the whole Slaughter of Animals Act. Difficulties in enforcing other sections of the Act which he mentions here will be much more onerous, because in Part III, Section 19, it is declared that no person, unless he is a registered veterinary surgeon, or the holder of a slaughter licence for the time being in force shall slaughter any animal in a slaughterhouse. Therefore, a person who now kills a sheep, a pig or a beast of the bovine species must be licensed. As I pointed out, owing to decisions of the courts it appeared that only those who use a humane killer itself should be licensed.

There will be great difficulty now in going back and trying to get every butcher in every slaughterhouse to pay 5/- to the local authority for a licence. I cannot see how that could be enforced easily. I would have hoped that some consideration should have been given by the Local Government Department, before they promulgated the Order, to the possibility of post-dating its enforcement. It is a full month before local authorities were made aware of the Order, and, actually, it was not printed for some time afterwards. An explanation has been given that it was not necessary to table it on account of a previous emergency Order.

When the Senator was speaking yesterday, I interposed a question about the cruelty which was caused before the introduction of this Act. There was cruelty, undoubtedly, much of it unintentional. I do not claim that butchers are angels, but, at the same time, they are very humane, and to me, personally, the greatest benefit I could see in the Slaughter of Animals Act was its effect on the human subject rather than on the actual slaughter. All slaughtering, no matter how it is done, is cruel, and I wish to tell the members of the House, after supervising it for 20 years, that I found butchers generally very amenable to any instructions or advice you would give them in trying to minimise cruelty. A good deal of this debate is like a storm in a teacup, but, to my mind, the outstanding thing is that if butchers have to go back to the pole-axe when the instruments at present in use are worn out—and they easily go out of order—they will not be trained with the same efficiency to use the pole-axe as they were before the Act was enforced. That is why I feel that the replacements for these instruments should be got as quickly as possible.

People who are not accustomed to the slaughter of animals may think there is something extraordinary in this humane killer. It is simply a mechanical pole-axe. It is a captive bolt projected into the skull of an animal by an exploding cartridge, and it does the same thing as a pole-axe is intended to do, puncture the frontal bone and brain and render the animal unconscious. An efficient butcher with a pole-axe does the same thing with just as little cruelty as the Cash Captive Bolt pistol, or any of these humane instruments. There can be negligence in the use of these humane instruments just as there can be negligence in the use of the pole-axe.

The Senator mentioned that he saw several holes in the skull of an animal. I have on occasion seen an operator having to use the humane killer twice, giving two shots, because of the animal twisting the head at the moment he discharged the first cartridge. The same thing occurs with a pole-axe. Here is another point I would like Senators to know. When the animal is rendered unconscious, there is a further act to be committed, before it can be killed. The reflexes of an animal not having been stopped, contraction of the muscles renders it impossible for the man to bleed it, and the medulla or pith must be destroyed by the insertion of a cane in the opening made by the humane killer or pole-axe to kill the animal altogether before it can be bled. I am not pleading entirely for the butchers who do things wrongly, but on many occasions a second aperture had to be made even after the use of the humane killer to facilitate the insertion of the cane to destroy the medulla and render these reflex actions impossible. That explains why you get second punctures on the frontal bone of the skull. It occurs with a humane killer as well as with a pole-axe.

I should like the House to bear these things in mind. It has been suggested that much of it has been done for electioneering purposes. That, I believe, is all tommy rot. This action has been necessitated by the scarcity of the instruments, and I must say, with all my heart, that I want to see these instruments placed in the hands of the butchers again, so that this Act could continue to do the good work it has been doing up to the present. But, I will go farther and say that I would like to see the Slaughter of Animals Acts altered altogether, by reason of the difficulties that have arisen in the cases brought before the courts. The question of slaughter, as distinct from rendering unconscious for the purpose of slaughter, should definitely be defined, and there are several other clauses in the Act which should be amended, clauses which we sought to have inserted in the Bill when it was going through the Houses of the Oireachtas.

The Act does not define a slaughterhouse. The ideal slaughterhouse should have a lairage, a slaughter chamber, and a cooling shed. Although it does not define a slaughterhouse as it stands, it requires that while in a slaughterhouse the animals should get food and water. Food and water should be provided in the lairage but the slaughter chamber should be defined, and also, if possible, the cooling shed. Nothing should happen in the slaughter chamber except the slaughtering of the animals; animals should not be kept in it. These improvements would make the Act more effective and more in accordance with modern ideas of what we would like to see in the case of animals, which have to have the cruel operation of slaughtering imposed on them. This Order was promulgated to local authorities a month after it was made. On the very day it was received by local authorities—the 16th November —I took particulars in a private slaughterhouse of a breach of the Slaughter of Animals Act due to the non-use of the humane killer. On the same day, notice of the Order appeared in the Press. I felt very sore to think that the Act under which I was operating was out of date for almost a month. If a circular had been sent notifying us that, as from a certain date—say a week from the date of the issue of the circular—this clause of the Act would be suspended, it would have been reasonable. To notify us that it was suspended from a date about a month prior to the receipt of the notification was very wrong. If a local authority did a thing like that, the Local Government Department would be very quick to inquire why they did so. I hold no brief for the Local Government Department in respect of many of the things which it does.

Perhaps I may now refer to a recent appointment under which an officer who is pensioned from the Local Government Department became manager of County Meath. I do not think that that is correct conduct on the part of the central authority—to pension an officer and then pass him on as county manager to a local authority. There are plenty of officials of local authorities willing to take up an appointment like that without transferring a pensioned officer from the central authority to act as county manager—temporarily, I grant.

Cathaoirleach

I think that that matter had better be deferred until the debate on this subject matter has concluded.

Mr. Foran

May I ask Senator O'Donovan a question? To his knowledge, was Dublin Corporation consulted before this Order was made?

Mr. O'Donovan

I am not the Dublin Corporation. At the time of the issue of the first Order local authorities were asked for their experience on account of the shortage of cartridges. That was a year ago. So far as I am aware, no intimation was sent to any local authority that this Order was being made. The City Manager may have been consulted. I do not know whether he was or not.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

The Senator has referred to a possible shortage of cartridges and of guns. Had he ever any difficulty in getting cartridges? Did he ever go to large retailers or wholesalers and find they were not available?

Mr. O'Donovan

In 1942 there was a great shortage of the cartridges which are used for killing sheep. There are two types of cartridge— one for cattle and one for sheep.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

A year ago there was a shortage of one type of cartridge for one animal?

Mr. O'Donovan

One "type of animal" is quite different from "one animal." If the Act fell through in respect of sheep, it would also fall through in respect of cattle. There was great danger of cruelty by using a sheep cartridge on a beast, because it would not penetrate the skull of a cow or a bullock. I think it was quite reasonable to make the Order giving power to the Minister to make this Order in certain eventualities. My principal grievance is that local authorities were notified only a month after this Order was made. All we had done in the meantime was rendered futile.

Mr. Counihan

Senator Kingsmill Moore's account of the introduction and passing of the Slaughter of Animals Act is substantially correct but it is not correct to say that it passed both Houses unanimously. As a representative of the cattle trade, I opposed several provisions of the Bill which I thought were unnecessary. The Select Committee which made recommendations were not unanimous, either. I am not competent to discuss the points which the Senator raised regarding the legality of the Order but I am sure that the Minister had good cause for making the Order. If no cartridges were available, what was to be done except revoke the Order? This is not a time for inflicting unnecessary hardships on anybody and all this noise about the humane killer is so much "boloney." The Drogheda Meat Company, of which I was a director, invited representatives of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to go down there and contrast the pole-axe with the humane killer. A demonstration was carried out and everybody had to admit that, if anything, the pole-axe was more humane than the humane killer and more effective. I agree that if it was necessary to use the humane killer eight or nine years ago, it is doubly necessary to use it now because, as the Senator pointed out, many of the people who were experts in the use of the pole-axe in those days are out of practice and would not be so expert now. A good deal has been said about the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the good work they are doing. I do not want to discuss it very much except to admit that they are preventing a certain amount of cruelty, but they cause a lot of hardship and unnecessary expense to the farmers of the country, and until they change their attitude they will not have any support from me or from the farmers either. It is a monstrous thing to see a society getting district justices to prevent the use of blackthorn sticks for the driving of cattle, and I would ask the Minister to get the Minister for Justice to prevent that sort of thing or otherwise we will have the humane society presenting gold cups to district justices who convict in the greatest number of cases.

Cathaoirleach

I suggest, Senator, that blackthorn sticks are outside this subject matter.

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Mr. MacEntee)

I think there are two nett points to be considered in dealing with this matter, and that they are two slightly different points. The first one is whether the Minister for Local Government, for the Government, acted in such a way as to deprive the House of proper knowledge of what the Executive was doing in relation to a Statute of the Oireachtas. It has been suggested that we proceeded by way of these two Orders in order to keep the House ignorant of what we proposed to do. I do not think there is the slightest plausibility in that suggestion. The Order under which I have acted is an Order which, in accordance with the authorising Statute, was made by the Government and laid before both Houses. That is the Order of August, 1942, and that Order empowered the Minister for Local Government from time to time, by Order, to suspend the operation of sub-section (1) Section 15 of the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1935, either as regards animals generally or animals of a particular kind.

That Emergency Order was before the House for the statutory period. The powers that it was proposed by this Order to give the Minister were within the knowledge of the House, and the House approved of the Order, and therefore conferred upon the Minister the powers so to act according to his own discretion from time to time. There is no proviso in Emergency Order No. 212, which makes the action of the Minister in this matter subject to a review in this House. That is the constitutional position, that is the position under the law, and I have no apology to make for the fact that in the exercise of my proper discretion and good judgment I made the Order of October, 1943. Because, Sir, I was the person upon whom the responsibility had been placed, I was the person to whom the representations regarding these difficulties were made, and I was the person who had to be satisfied that the terms of this Act could be carried out without undue difficulty or hardship, or without undue cruelty being inflicted upon animals. In the exercise of the discretion conferred upon me by the Oireachtas, I made this Order.

It has been suggested, I understand, that although this Order was made in August, 1942—that is the principal Order—that for some political reason I deferred making the Order until October, 1943. I think that suggestion is an unworthy one. I think the person who made it might at least credit the Minister, a responsible Minister, with at least as much concern to ensure that hardship and cruelty——

Mr. Foran

Did any member of this House make that suggestion?

Mr. O'Donovan

Oh, yes.

Mr. Foran

Not in my hearing.

Mr. MacEntee

He should at least credit the Minister with the same feeling for dumb animals and for the brute creation as is professed by himself. The reason why there was delay in making the Order was because I took steps to satisfy myself that the representations that were being made to me were well founded. Not merely was I at great pains to assure myself in regard to this fact, but I was also at great pains to see if an alternative method of painless slaughter could not be made available. That is the reason why this interval of over 12 months elapsed from the time of the making of the original Order. I was reluctant to use the power which Order 212 conferred upon me and I only used it when I was satisfied that there was in certain parts of the country extreme difficulty in complying with the terms of the Act.

Now what is the Order about which all this hubbub is being raised? What does it do? It does not make it compulsory upon any person to refrain from using the humane killer, but it gives permission to a person, who has not the instruments or equipment which he would require to comply with the Statute and fulfil the obligations of the Statute, to use other means, but to use them in such a way that undue suffering or cruelty will not be occasioned. That is what we have done. And what alternative is there? After all we have to see that the food of the people is secure. If a beast comes to a slaughterhouse and if, for one reason or another, the necessary instruments and the materials required for the use of these instruments are not readily available, are we going to hold the beast and impose hardship upon the person who has in the first place brought the beast there for slaughter, and impose inconvenience on his customers? Or are we going to say that in the circumstances the person who wants to slaughter the beast may slaughter it in a humane fashion without needless cruelty to the animal?

That is the principal problem that I have got to face up to. In circumstances where there is a large number of instruments used in this country for which ammunition has not been available—the majority of the instruments used here were instruments of Continental manufacture, I am told—and I have no reason to believe that I am being misled in this matter, or that any person is wilfully deceiving me, least of all authorities like the Dublin Corporation and other local bodies. After all the local bodies have some sense of responsibility, and they do not make needless and baseless representations to me in a matter of this sort. If the public authorities have been endeavouring to enforce the provisions of this Act, I am not going to assume, when they say they are now finding great difficulty in doing so, and that therefore there should be some easement, that they are any less responsive than I am to humane feeling in this matter.

Many local authorities have come along and said: "We are aware of the fact that most of the humane killers in the Twenty-Six Counties are of Continental manufacture and the necessary ammunition is not available and there is delay and inconvenience, suffering, hardship and loss as the result. Accordingly we ask you to waive this Statutory obligation." I must give ear to these representations. We have been told, I understand, that there are large quantities of ammunition here in Dublin at this moment. This ammunition cannot be used in these killers which are in most general use in the Twenty-Six Counties. Therefore, I think the argument is not of general application. If there is ammunition, and if there are appropriate instruments of one kind or another available here, I have no doubt that those people who have become accustomed to using humane killers will avail of them, but I cannot give them an assurance—and I understand there is no person that can give them an assurance—that if they purchase these instruments and get a ration of ammunition they will be able to get further supplies of ammunition within six months from now. Without a positive assurance from those who control the export to this country of this ammunition, am I going to compel individuals to embark on a large expenditure which may prove useless within six or 12 months? I have got to think not merely of the animals; I have got to think of human beings. I do not want to try to equate the principles of ordinary humaneness with the mere conveniences of humanity, but these are the facts that have to be taken into consideration.

These are the practical considerations with which the Minister has to deal. He is not there merely to advance the objects of one particular organisation or another particular organisation. He is there to look after the interests of the State and the citizens as a whole in the circumstances in which we find ourselves to-day, and to try to enable everybody to carry on to the best of his ability in all the difficulties with which he has to contend. That is why I made this Order.

Let me get back to the point I stressed at the beginning. I made the Order with extreme reluctance, and the proof of that reluctance is the fact that I had received representations early in 1941 from the Dublin Corporation and others that there were difficulties in securing adequate supplies of ammunition for these instruments. These supplies must be freely forthcoming if we are going to operate a large undertaking like the Dublin Abattoir. The butchers there must be able to use them from day to day. They cannot be held up by a shortage of supplies. We investigated the Corporation representations fully, and there were representations from other local authorities to substantiate them. The gentlemen who suggest that I was guilty of some political manoeuvring might remember that there were elections in August, 1942, when the first Order was laid before and approved by the Oireachtas. It was fully 14 months after that that the second Order was made. If there is any quarrel about the Order, surely the quarrel is with the Oireachtas and the Legislature, not with the Minister.

Under the powers which the Government in the first instance conferred on me and the Oireachtas subsequently confirmed, I came along 14 months later and made this permissive Order allowing people who could not get the necessary equipment to slaughter animals in other humane ways. In sending a copy of the Order to the local authorities I was careful to say this: "The Order legalises the stunning or slaughtering of animals in a slaughterhouse otherwise than by means approved by the Minister. It should be understood, however, that the other provisions of the Act which have for their object the prevention of cruelty to animals in a slaughterhouse and their proper treatment therein remain in full force."

I emphasised the primary purpose of the Act, which is to ensure that the animals for slaughter are dealt with in a humane way. I think there has been left very little ground for the sort of suggestion that I understand has been bandied about here with regard to my conduct as the responsible Minister and with regard to the conduct of the Government. This is a matter in which powers were conferred on me as prescribed by the laws of the State, and I can only say I think I used these powers in a way which was calculated to do the least possible violence to the original intention of the Act.

Mr. Foran

Can I comment on the Minister's statement?

Cathaoirleach

Yes, the Senator may. He has not yet intervened on this subject matter.

Mr. Foran

I am sorry that the Minister is leaving the House.

Mr. MacEntee

Well, you know I have another House.

Mr. Foran

I repudiated the suggestion that there was any political motive in this matter, but I understand there was such a suggestion. It was very unfortunate that there was and it gave the Minister the opportunity to get away completely from the issue raised by Senator Kingsmill Moore. The Minister availed fully of that opportunity, and if those who made the suggestion had been wiser they would not have provided the Minister with the excuse he wanted. On these benches we have an absolute abhorrence of the Emergency Powers Act, and the Minister's statement justifies us on every issue upon which we have challenged that Act. The Minister has justified everything we have said about it all the time, because he has told us that there were two years actually in which this question was bandied about—that there was a shortage of ammunition and gear required to carry out the provisions of the Act. If there had been no Emergency Powers Act the Slaughter of Animals Act could have been amended by legislation, because there was ample time and ample notice. Therefore, all that we can say now, all that we have said in the past and all that we will say in the future against the Emergency Powers Order is being justified and borne out every other day. I want to emphasise that there were two years in which a short Bill could have been introduced, and Senator Kingsmill Moore or anybody else could have stated their views. It has been emphasised here that there was a tremendous amount of ammunition and machinery in this country with which to carry out the provisions of the Act.

We cannot ignore the statement of Senator O'Donovan, who says that the Dublin Corporation had difficulty in getting the necessary ammunition, but, at any rate, the only point made by the Minister was that he felt that he was not justified in jeopardising the supply of food for the people of this country so long as there was a reasonable doubt that these humane killers, or the ammunition for them, would not be available. My main point is that the Minister again made use of his powers under the Emergency Powers Act to issue this Order in this particular way. This issue was raised two years ago, but the first that we heard of it was through the medium of an Order issued by the Minister only a week or two ago, thereby proving, to my satisfaction, at any rate, that the Order should be revoked at the earliest possible moment. I am saying that, in view of the Minister's own statement.

Mr. O'Sullivan rose.

Cathaoirleach

I am afraid, Senator, that as you have already spoken on this subject matter it would not be within the procedure that you should make a second speech.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I merely wanted to point out, Sir, that the Minister did not answer my question with regard to the issuing of this Order. I asked him why a particular section of the Act of 1939, with regard to the tabling of these Orders, had not been applied in this case; why the particular Order concerned was not tabled, or why an opportunity was not given to the Oireachtas to annul the Order within the prescribed period, if it was thought necessary. The Minister did not answer that question. I would agree with what Senator Foran said—that the Minister's statement was somewhat in the form of a mea culpa, and I think that the Minister has treated this House with great disrespect by coming in here, making a short statement, and then leaving the House immediately, without giving any of us an opportunity of questioning him in regard to his statement.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

I should like to say a few words, if I am in order, in regard to this matter, although it appears that I shall be addressing those few words to an empty Ministerial Chair.

Cathaoirleach

As the Senator initiated the debate on this matter, he is free to conclude the debate.

Mr. Hawkins

I think the Senator should realise that the Minister is engaged in another House, and that he cannot attend two Houses at the one time.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

Yes; I am quite aware of that, but I made certain statements of fact—facts which I had personally ascertained by going to the people concerned—and it appears to me that the Minister has simply brushed these statements of fact aside, not having heard them originally, I presume; but he must have read them in the Official Reports of this House. All that we want is to get certain information with regard to this matter. There are two things here to be considered, as the Minister himself pointed out. The first is the constitutional point of view. I do not wish to deal with that point again, because if this power was delegated to the Minister, it is the Government as a whole that has to answer for the responsibility of that delegation. What I wish to say is that if this Order had been put before either House, and had been made subject to the same provisions as existed in connection with the original Order, then nothing would be concealed from this House, and if it were thought necessary we could annul the Order. That is the procedure that should be followed, and it is the procedure that, I hope, will be followed in the future, now that this abuse has been shown up.

With regard to statements made by the Minister, to the general effect that the majority, or a vast quantity, of such instruments as humane killers that are used in this country are of Continental manufacture, I respectfully challenge the Minister's information on that point. I stated last night that about four times as many Cash Captive Bolts were used as any other instruments for humane slaughter. I have been informed, in the course of the debate, that the Cash Captive Bolt is used in the Dublin Abattoir, and I understand that that is correct.

Mr. O'Donovan

That is correct.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

As far as my information goes, that type of pistol is used in all the public abattoirs, and is by far the most popular of all such instruments. In that connection, there has been no reply from the Minister with regard to what I said as to the available supplies in the hands of the manufacturers of these pistols, or the wholesale or retail distributors of these instruments, and the ammunition available in this country.

I mentioned that 500,000 cartridges had been supplied to Dublin in the course of the year, and that one retailer here had 50,000 cartridges on hands. I also pointed out that 1,000,000 cartridges were available in in England, for use here, if they were applied for; that the makers of a certain type of these pistols were prepared to supply as many of them as we required in Ireland, and that they had already got an anticipatory promise from the British Board of Trade that permits would be available for exporting these instruments to this country. The reason I mentioned that was because certain statements had been made that these particular types of pistols, or the ammunition for them, could not be procured. I have no doubt—especially when the Minister says so—that representations were made to him by different people that there was a shortage of ammunition for these pistols; but I suggest that the reason for such representations was that there always have been people who dislike the trouble involved in using the humane killer. The pole-axe for instance, can be thrown in a corner, or may even be used to hold up a window, but the humane killer must be kept clean, and there has always been an objection to the use of the humane killer by people who are unwilling to take the trouble of keeping it clean. There is also, I am sure, an objection on the part of certain people as to the trouble involved in the inspection of abattoirs or slaughterhouses in the country. It seems to me, therefore, that when such representations were made to the Minister, he assumed that they were accurate, and did not think it necessary to investigate the circumstances fully. It is apparent to me, at any rate, that he did not investigate the circumstances fully because, as I pointed out yesterday, Irish Metal Industries, or British Imperial Chemicals, were in a position to supply all our needs in this regard. I also pointed out yesterday that there were firms in local districts in the country, which were also in a position to supply our needs. I did not mention their names, but my information is that dealers in Cork, Waterford, Limerick, Clonmel and Sligo all stated that there was no shortage whatever of the ammunition required.

The trouble is that the Minister, in his reply, has made an excellent case for making a different Order in different circumstances. He has made no case for the present Order in the existing circumstances. He has made some case for making an Order absolving the users of one or two types of humane killers, which are not readily available, from having to use them until they would be in a position to get another type of humane killer. He has made a case for absolving people from using a particular type of humane killer because they were unable to get ammunition for it. I stated that, from my information, there is no shortage of ammunition, and I am asking the Minister, if he finds that there is no shortage, to revoke this Order which, I say again, must have been made hastily; or that, if necessary, he could issue a modified Order, giving a moratorium of, say, three months to six months to persons, who may have an unusual type of pistol for which ammunition is short, so as to enable such people to get one of the recognised types of pistols which can be supplied in quantity, and for which plenty of ammunition is available.

There is one other matter to which I should like to refer, and that is in connection with the criticism of my statement as to the number of holes I have seen in the skull of an animal. We have been told that that might be caused by the animal twisting its head, or because of the necessity for inserting a cane into the pith of the skull after the animal had been rendered unconscious, but I submit that that would not account for six or seven holes in the skull. In that connection, I should like to read for the House portion of the introductory speech made by the proposer of the Bill, Senator O'Farrell, in this House, on the 13th December, 1933. On the Second Stage of the Bill, on that date, Senator O'Farrell said:—

"The Corporation of London made a number of experiments in public slaughterhouses in Islington, and they found that with the pole-axe used by experienced and expert butchers, in the case of bulls, it took 250 strokes to bring down 100 bulls; in the case of 100 oxen, 123 blows were necessary; in the case of 100 cows, 127 blows were required, and in the case of 100 pigs, 155 blows. In other words, to fell 400 beasts, 655 strokes of the pole-axe were necessary, and that is so when nobody but experts, or so-called experts, are employed.

"They then tested 1,255 cases in which a captive bolt was used. These included bulls and a number of old animals which are difficult to fell, and it was found that for the 1,255 animals, only 1,259 shots were necessary, and of these, two were failures, because the bullet did not explode, but no suffering was imposed, and in the two remaining cases, pigs, the animals moved their heads just at the moment of firing."

I think those figures, the result of experiments by the London County Council, may be left to speak for themselves. I again very respectfully urge the Minister to investigate the facts which I have stated and which I am willing to put before him in greater detail if he so wishes. Unless he can show that these facts are wrong, I ask him immediately to annul this Order.

Mr. O'Donovan

I do not wish to prolong this debate but I did not think that any Senator would be allowed to speak more than once. It has already occurred on two occasions. I should like to ask the Senator, as he was allowed to speak again, one simple question: Did he ask Garnetts, who are agents for the Cash Captive Bolt, if they have any of these instruments in stock now?

Cathaoirleach

Senator Kingsmill Moore initiated the debate on this particular subject matter.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

Does the Senator mean ammunition or pistols?

Mr. O'Donovan

Pistols.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

No, because a question did not arise about pistols.

Mr. O'Donovan

The simple fact is that Garnetts, who are agents for the Cash Captive Bolt, have none of them.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

I saw one of them there yesterday.

Mr. O'Donovan

It may have been one sent in by us for repairs. I am not questioning the Senator's statement but I hate to have an argument founded on something which is not a fact.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

I shall give the Senator the information he desires outside.

Cathaoirleach

The Seanad will now consider points to be raised by Senators in connection with the Departments of Supplies and Industry and Commerce.

Mr. Crosbie

I regret that this is the second occasion in this House on which I have had to draw attention to the question of freights on Irish-owned ships. I regret even more that it is the second occasion on which the Minister concerned has, unavoidably I presume, been absent. In dealing with this question of freights on Irish-owned ships, I am not for one moment losing sight of the difficulties, dangers and expenses incurred in running our mercantile marine, such as it is, during the war. Nobody has a greater respect or a greater admiration than I for the men who man these ships. I think that all of us in this country are under a deep debt of gratitude to each and every one of them. I am not criticising any of these people.

I do want, however, to draw the attention of the House to the curious way in which freight charges have been handled. The House may or may not be aware that as far as our ships are concerned, there are two main routes. There is the North Transatlantic route from Canada to various ports in Ireland, generally Dublin or Cork. There is also the Lisbon-Dublin route. I understand that the rates charged for freight vary according to the class of goods carried. I, however, propose to deal only with the commodity with which I am familiar and for which I have figures, to wit, newsprint in reels.

The position was that from 3rd September, 1942, until the spring of 1943, the freight rate charged on Irish-owned ships, whether owned by private companies or whether run by Irish Shipping, Limited, the managers of which are mostly the officials of the private companies, was £37 10s. per ton. In May of 1943 for some reason or other, that freight charge was reduced to £27 per ton, and on the 1st November of this year a further cut of 20 per cent. was made, reducing the freight to £21 12s. per ton. In the meantime it might be of interest to point out that when the rate was £37 10s. per ton, the Swedish people were carrying the same cargo a far greater distance for £10 per ton and that belligerent ships were carrying similar cargoes for £10 5s. per ton. I have no quarrel with the fact that these rates have been reduced by three steps over a period of 12 months, but I am rather puzzled as to why it has come about and in the absence of special knowledge, which I do not think any member of this House possesses, I fail to see that either the expenses of running these ships or the dangers involved have been in any way lessened since 1942. As far as I know, and as far as the general public are aware, the costs of running these ships must be in or about the same and, surely as long as the life and death struggle continues between belligerents in the Atlantic, unarmed helpless ships of neutral countries are in just as much danger as ever they were.

I can only presume, therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the Minister concerned felt that first of all the charge of £37 10s. per ton was too high, and that the companies concerned were making an undue profit at that rate, and that he made representations to them and caused them, subsequently, to reduce their rates in May of this year to £27 per ton. I can then, again, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, presume only that on further investigation, or as the result of representations made by importers, he discovered that the rate of £27 per ton was unduly high and he made them come down on the 1st November of this year to the rate of £21 12s.

If that is the case I would respectfully suggest to the Minister that he should take further action. I think each and every one of us is interested in the future of a possible Irish mercantile marine after the war. If our mercantile marine during the war is making an undue profit and overcharging its customers unduly, it will undoubtedly have a prejudicial effect on its chances of survival after the war, when competition will be open and keen, and I suggest, in all seriousness, to the Minister that what we should do with these companies is, that he should suggest to them that they adopt the same attitude as has been adopted by the Cork Gas Consumers Company who, when they found they had to raise their charges for gas owing to the fluctuating price of coal, and subsequently made an undue profit, they returned the profit to their consumers in the form of a rebate. I think the Minister ought seriously to consider compelling Irish shipping companies, and Irish Shipping, to return the undue profits they must have made in the course of their trading to the customers who have been compelled by circumstances to use their ships for the importation of goods necessary to keep industries running in this country.

Mr. Hawkins

Would not the Senator consider that the change in the system of insurance was the chief cause of the reduction in freights? When Irish Shipping took over their own insurance it enabled them to reduce the cost of freights. As regards the refund made by the Cork Cas Company, that was made compulsory on the company by the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

General Mulcahy

Did the Senator see the statement of the Cork Gas Company in the Cork Examiner?

Mr. Crosbie

I am sure the Senator did not read that statement.

Mr. Hawkins

I did.

Mr. Crosbie

I do not think he did. As regards insurance—the Senator is right that Irish Shipping has taken over their own insurance, but nobody has been able to discover how much is freight and how much is insurance.

Mr. Hawkins

Everybody has been able to discover that freight charges have been reduced from £37 to £21.

General Mulcahy

As a result of profits on insurance.

Mr. Counihan

My object in raising the question of supplies of artificial fertilisers is not to blame the Minister for not having secured supplies, but to try to induce him to have an equitable distribution to the farmer of what we have. Many farmers throughout the country, through lack of money or credit, were not able to purchase supplies in 1940, and the regulation which he has made is that there will be a proportion of the supplies available distributed only to the people who purchased artificial manures in 1940. I think under the conditions which existed in 1940 that that regulation is very unjust to many farmers. In 1940, as I have said, farmers might not be in a position to buy manures or might not require to buy manures, but now that they have possibly got into better circumstances and their financial position is improved, although their land has been run out, I think the amount of fertilisers available should be distributed on a basis proportionate, after providing for beet and potatoes, to the acreage which the farmer is cultivating. I suggest that those representations be made to the Minister for Agriculture before fixing the Order for the distribution of supplies.

Another point I want to raise is that under the present arrangement, there is a credit note of 2/6 per barrel given to persons who deliver wheat to the millers or the merchants. As I understood the position, that credit note is to bring back the fertility of the land where the wheat is growing. There are many people growing wheat who have no land of their own, and those people are getting their credit notes for 2/6 per barrel. As they have no land of their own they will only have to sell these credit notes or do something along those lines with them. If the object of this 2/6 is, as I understood it to be, to enable the purchaser of fertilisers to bring back the fertility of the land where the wheat was grown, it is very unjust to give it to the people who merely grew the wheat. It should be given to the farmer who owned the land, which is not the case at present. There is a great deal of confusion about it, and I would like the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Supplies to clear up that point very definitely as soon as possible. That is the principal objection I raised about artificial manures; we have not a sufficient quantity to go around and I think they should be equitably distributed and there should be some definite Order made with regard to who is going to get the credit note for 2/6 in respect of each barrel of wheat delivered.

Mr. O'Donnell

Although the Minister is not here, and I may not be able to get the information, I want to know when he intends to publish the report of the committee which made enquiries into patents and trade marks. This matter of patents and trade marks is one of primary importance to manufacturers of this country. I need hardly stress its importance, but it is quite evident to anybody who thinks about it, that the allocation by English firms of nationally-established trade marks to subsidiary companies can have a deleterious effect on the establishment of Irish companies which had to work up, advertise and make known generally their own trade marks and the names of the goods they manufacture. There is an amount of uneasiness among manufacturers generally as to the attitude of the Patent Office in the allocation of trade marks. It has been suggested that cases have been known of trade marks being granted to firms who were not either Irish or Irish controlled, and that trade marks of a similar type had been refused to firms which were both Irish and Irish controlled. I will give you facts on that. The word "Primo" was applied for by a company which manufactures feeding-stuffs. The Controller of Trade Marks refused the registration of the word on the plea that it was both descriptive and laudatory. In another category, an English firm, manufacturing soap, applied for the use of the word "Primo" and in this case were granted the use of the word. I cannot follow the mentality which refuses registration of a mark as laudatory and descriptive in one case, and cannot apply the same qualities to it under another category.

We have the case also of a company which has registered a wine under the words "alto vino", which anybody saying quickly would call "altar wine". We know of an Irish company which was trying to register a wine of its own bottling with its own name and the word "Vino" attached. The Patent and Trade Marks Office refused the registration on the ground that the name was descriptive.

The position here for a long time has been that the assignment of trade marks by English companies to their Irish friends has been granted freely and this is reacting most unfairly upon young Irish industries. We have innumerable cases of firms starting here to manufacture some product and being under the necessity of building from the ground upwards. If they obtained a trade mark for their product, they had to spend thousands of pounds advertising it before it would become familiar to the general public. Yet, an English company manufacturing a similar product can assign its trade mark to a subsidiary company here, with very serious results for the little Irish company. This means that big English companies, with nationally advertised trade marks and with tremendous financial resources further to advertise their trade marks in Great Britain and Ireland, are simply going to kill the possible industrialisation of this country. People who are not in commerce do not realise the extreme necessity that exists for the greater protection of Irish producers of goods in the matter of the granting and assignment of trade marks.

A committee of inquiry which investigated this matter made a report some time ago, but no statement regarding that report has, so far as I am aware, been made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Manufacturers, generally, have no knowledge of what the Minister intends to do regarding the alternation of the Act so as to make it more beneficial to the Irish manufacturer. The Irish manufacturer is looking for nothing but his rights. If a group in this country have sufficient initiative and courage to put their money into an industry, it should not be possible for an English company, with the assistance of an Irish Government, to put them out of business in 12 months because they are able to put a similar product, with a nationally advertised trade mark, on the market. That is a very serious problem for Irish industrialists and, unless we can get some protection from our own Government in the matter of trade marks, the effect on the development of Irish industry will be serious.

There is, then, the question of the patent laws—a very difficult question and one which needs very careful consideration. The Minister should make us aware of what he proposes to do in the alteration of the present system of granting patents and trade marks, and he should do that as soon as possible. All around there is talk of post-war development. Those of us who are interested in the industrial expansion of the country are wondering how we are going to fare in the post-war world, with the terrific competition which will be forthcoming, with the introduction of these foreign trade marks here and with the use of patents which may be inimical to our welfare. The whole question of patents and trade marks is of fundamental and primary importance and I should like the Minister, if he were present, to tell us what he proposes to do in the matter. Why have trade marks, applied for by companies outside the country, been granted while patents of a similar nature, applied for by Irish companies, have been refused? I do not like to make a general statement, but I have given two instances—the use of the words "Primo" and "Alto Vino". If anybody can refute the statement I have made, I shall be glad to apologise.

There is another small but important matter to which I should like to refer. Some years ago a decision was given in an English court that a trade mark could not be assigned without the assignment at the same time of the complete goodwill of the assignor. According to that decision, if an English company wishes to assign its trade mark to a subsidiary Irish company, it should also assign all its goodwill, including its factories and methods of production. For some reason or other the Irish Trade Marks Office does not interpret that decision in the manner in which many people think it ought to be interpreted. They have allowed the registration of trade marks of English companies which were assigned to subsidiary Irish companies without the assignment of the complete goodwill of the parent company. That is a most important omission. It will mean that people here will simply have to go out of business while trying to establish a trade mark associated with an Irish made product since English firms with nationally advertised trade marks can assign their trade marks to subsidiary companies and build up sales here. The development in Irish industry will in that way become a mockery. There will be a serious reaction on the whole development of Irish industry unless there is a change in the attitude of mind regarding the decision of the English court in 1926 respecting the assignment of trade marks. If the Minister were replying, I should like to have an explanation as to why the English law is not enforced here in the administration of the Act governing patents and trade marks.

In connection with the Business Names Act, I am sure everybody has been struck by the extraordinary anomaly that all around this city and the countryside people have names on facia boards entirely dissimilar from those displayed on their own facia boards. There are more people trading under the title of "Irish this or that," or "National this or that," or under the name of O'Shaughnessy or Murchadha or O'Donnell than are entitled to trade under these descriptions. So long as the Business Names Act of 1916 is allowed to remain unaltered on our Statute book, that position will continue. Under that Act, people can trade here as they wish, so long as they comply with its requirements in so far as they apply to the printing of the names of the directors or proprietors on their letter headings.

I was going to plead that consideration should be given to the complete re-drafting of this Bill of 1916. I was going to suggest not alone should it be made compulsory upon people to put their names on their letter headings and other matters in connection with their business, but that the names of the owners or the directors of the business should appear on the facia board of their particular business in an equal size to the name under which they are trading.

I had a case of a Senator here who told me that he was getting an electrical job done recently and he employed a firm called the "Irish So-and-so." He thought it was an Irish firm, but he was astonished to discover when the job was done that it was owned by a foreigner who had not even taken out nationality papers in this country. If there is an Act in being which allows foreigners to trade here under any sort of title which they wish to take up, it is something which is reacting against the national interest, and I would suggest that the whole matter should be inquired into. I would like to know from the Minister how many prosecutions took place under that Act, and how many inspectors are there to see that the Act is enforced. I know I will be told, as other organisations such as the National Agricultural and Industrial Organisation and the Federation of Irish Industries have been told, that if the Act is being evaded, and if we had any information, to give it to the Minister concerned, and he would see that the Act was carried out. But I would suggest that it is not the business of the ordinary man in the street to be an agent provocateur in this matter, and that it is the duty of the Minister to see that the Act is enforced.

Indignation on this matter has reached a strong point. You will hear it voiced more in outside places than in the precincts of this House, and the fact that there are in parts of this country, and the City of Dublin particularly, people who are trading under names which they legally are not entitled to, and which are giving them a green mantle to which they are not entitled, is largely causing it. This whole matter of the 1916 Act should be carefully investigated, and while I can understand that there is a certain amount of reciprocity needed, I would point out that this arrangement with another country is entirely against the interests of this country.

I further suggest that the form of licensing which is now applied to manufacturers should be applied to the distributing trade. It should not be possible for anybody who comes into the country to set up in business to the detriment of nationals. There is nothing at the moment to stop any immigrant who comes in here with sufficient money to start off in business and to dispossess Irish people of their business. I would suggest that in the Act, which I hope will be brought in, that power of licensing will be given to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, with the proviso that under no circumstances is an Irish national to be refused the right to trade. In that way we may help to prevent abuses by people trading here under false colours and doing a tremendous amount of damage to traders in our own towns.

It might be made a little more difficult for foreigners to secure a change of name. I know, of course, that in so far as the law has to be complied with it is being complied with, and possibly to a certain extent we are to blame for the ease with which we allow certain people to come here and change their names overnight. We have the appalling case of one man who changed his name three times and was in three bankruptcies to boot. People in this country are in the main inclined to deal with Irish nationals, with people of their own flesh and blood, and while I am not arguing for sectarianism in any form, it is quite evident that they are being misled, and if it is with the connivance of the Government it is only right that we should claim that the Act be revised, or that a new Act be put into operation giving Irishmen at least equal opportunity of trading in their own country.

Mr. Campbell

I should like to support the request for a stricter supervision over aliens employed in our midst. I happen to be a member of an association to which this matter is the cause of constant concern. We have taken the matter up with the Department on many occasions and for the information of the House I will read a resolution which was sent forward to the Department which, if it has the power, certainly has not the machinery to enforce it. The resolution is:

"That in the opinion of the association the Business Names Act should be enforced, or if necessary the powers thereunder be increased, so as to secure that the name of every non-Irish born person, partner or director shall be printed on all business documents and more appropriately displayed, so that the Irish public may know whether they are doing business with foreign people or not."

We got a reply saying that whenever a case of non-compliance with the requirements of the Act was brought under the notice of the Department immediate action was taken to enforce the statutory requirements, and that Section 18 of the Act provided that every firm carrying on business under a business name should show in all catalogues, trade circulars, show cards, business letters, the name or names of the proprietors and also the nationality, where foreign. The reply added:

"I am to add that the Minister would be glad to be informed of any cases which might come to the notice of your association of individuals acting in contravention of the Act."

I do not think that is sufficient to deal with the grievance as to the methods employed by these people to deceive the public. Senator O'Donnell knows as well as I do the subterfuges to which these people resort. They changed their names to "O'Brien" or "O'Donnell" almost at will. We have very striking examples of it. Grave deceptions are practised on the people, and the people are under the impression that they are dealing with Irish firms. I think it is not good enough that the onus should be thrown on the people to bring information to the Department of the defects in the administration of this Act.

Apparently the Department has no machinery at all to see that the law is carried out, nor does it require the names of directors to be displayed, nor a change of names of directors. I support Senator O'Donnell's suggestion that this matter should be seriously dealt with by the Department, and if it has not got machinery to deal with it, I think the position has been reached in which steps should be taken effectively to deal with this matter. It is not so very important at the present time when there is a certain amount of restriction on aliens coming into the country, but in a few years I suppose we will return to peace conditions, and the same objectionable practices will be carried on by these people and for that reason I would like to support Senator O'Donnell's request.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

That concludes the debates on matters for the administration of which Ministers other than the Minister for Finance are responsible. We pass now to the questions for the Minister for Finance.

Mr. Sweetman

I want to raise three small business points. The first is that under the Finance Act of 1935, as the House is aware, certain fuel oils are permitted in motor mechanically propelled vehicles, and these oils are heavily taxed. Other oils, particularly T.V.O. and kerosene, are used for other purposes and are not taxed. Very properly the Minister, or rather the Revenue Commissioners, have an investigation Department to ensure that that legislation is not contravened, and that people do not use T.V.O. and kerosene in petrol driven motor cars. The practice that exists is that when a car is suspected of using T.V.O. or kerosene because of its dirty exhaust or some such method, the car is taken to the investigation officers headquarters and a sample taken of the fuel. Up to that I am perfectly satisfied that everything is satisfactory. A sample is taken of the fuel, and that sample is sent to the State chemist, who makes an analysis. I am quite satisfied that the analysis made by him is quite correct, but what I am not satisfied about is, to put it in the words of a judge—that while justice may be done it is necessary also that justice should be done. There is no provision in the Revenue Commissioners' arrangements by which a similar procedure should be adopted in this matter to that adopted under the Food and Drugs Act.

In that case three samples are taken and stamped with the official seal. One is retained by the inspector, one is sent to the State Chemist, and the third is handed back to the person who will be the subject of a prosecution, if it is found that the sample is defective. That man, by taking his sample to his own analyst with the official seal unbroken, can satisfy himself that the State Chemist is correct. After all, mistakes can happen in any laboratory and it is only right that what I shall term a proposed delinquent should be given an opportunity of verifying for himself the laboratory check that there is on the breach of the Act.

I may also say to the Minister that the desirability of having this change which I have indicated has been urged on more than one occasion by one of the district justices in Dublin, when dealing with prosecutions brought under the Act. Prosecutions are brought under the Finance Act and, after the Revenue Commissioners have prosecuted, at the same time the Minister for Supplies deals with the question of penalties for breach of the kerosene rationing Order on the same evidence. Therefore, if the new scheme is adopted in one case it should also be adopted in the other one. It would certainly lead to a greater satisfaction and to a greater feeling that a man who has been prosecuted under the Act has been fairly treated, instead of the position being as at present, that he has no means by which he can check the State Chemist's analysis.

The second point I want to raise is a delay and a gap which arise in a technical professional matter. When anybody buys a house or land which is not subject matter of the Land Registration and Title Act of 1921, that is, not bought under the Land Acts, he gets a deed, and while that deed is effective as from the date that it is executed, delivery is not effective until notice of it is given to the general public against what we call a bona fide person buying without notice. The method by which that general notice is given is by registration in the Registry of Deeds.

The situation that exists is that when the sale is closed, that is to say, when the solicitor for the purchaser hands over the money to the solicitor for the vendor, the solicitor for the purchaser gets the deed. Then he has to bring it to the Castle to get it stamped, and has to travel right across the city to Henrietta Street. He lodges his deed in the office, where it will be delayed until the following day.

Therefore, a gap of 24 hours must ensure in which it is possible for some person with fraudulent intent to put a blister or judgment mortgage on the property which would affect the purchaser rather than the vendor. That delay can be obviated in two ways. In the first place a good deal of delay could be prevented if there were facilities for stamping the document in the Deeds Office. The second thing I would ask the Minister to bring to the notice of the Minister for Justice is that it would be much more desirable if the Registry of Deeds adopted the same procedure as is adopted under the Land Registry, namely, that the time of priority is the time when the document is lodged properly in order rather than the time when it actually receives the official stamp. The third point I want to bring to the notice of the Minister is in connection with the Neutrality War Damage Act of 1941. Compensation for damage was to be paid under that Act, and powers were given to local authorities to acquire properties. In other cases of acquisition where local authorities acquire property they are bound to pay to the person who owns the property the cost of deducing title. In this particular case whether from omission or otherwise the local authority is not so empowered and as a result the local authority which is taking property for its own benefit and for its own good is putting an unfair burden on the man whose property is being acquired.

Mr. O'Donnell

I was going to suggest that as I have four questions to raise, we might adjourn.

Mr. Hayes

Senator Sweetman has been not only clear but brief, and I suggest we might finish this matter before we adjourn and give the Minister a breathing space before he replies.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

I think Senator O'Donnell has time to ask one or two questions.

Mr. O'Donnell

I have four matters that I want to bring to the attention of the House, and I think it will take me a considerable time to deal with these matters—perhaps half-an-hour.

Mr. Hayes

I did not think it would take so long.

Mr. O'Donnell

The first matter to which I wish to refer is in connection with the Emergency Research Bureau. I am not bringing up this matter in any controversial spirit, but rather in the spirit of inquiring into the work that is being done since the Bureau was established by the Government a few years ago. From the reports that have been made available to us by the Taoiseach, the members of the Bureau have been doing exceedingly fine work, but the trouble that I have, as a manufacturer—and I am sure that other manufacturers have the same trouble —is that it would appear that all the fine work that is being done by the Bureau is, so to speak, being kept secret, and that the results of the discoveries or inventions of its members are not being made available to manufacturers in this country, generally. The members of the Research Bureau are making discoveries of national importance, according to what the Taoiseach has told us, and, thereby, are adding to the wealth of the nation. I would suggest to you, Sir, and through you, to the Minister, that if anything could be done in the way of bringing our manufacturers into closer co-operation with the activities of the Bureau, it would be of great advantage to the development of our industries. We have found a certain amount of difficulty in discovering what the members of the Emergency Research Bureau are doing, or what discoveries they have made, and some of these discoveries or inventions might be of great benefit—and probably would be —to manufacturers in this country, generally.

We certainly appreciate the work that has been done, and is being done, by the Bureau. As a matter of fact, what astonishes me is that the amount devoted to this purpose under the Vote is so small. I dare say that the Minister for Finance can give us reasons as to why the amount provided for this purpose should be so circumscribed, but it struck me that in a country like this it was rather extraordinary that the amount of money devoted to industrial research should be so small. Personally, I feel that if certain scientists or chemists are willing to devote their time to research of this kind, the results of which would, ultimately, be for the benefit of the nation, I would be prepared to give them £5,000 a year each, and lock them up and tell them to go ahead with their experiments, so that they need not be worried about the ordinary matters of life. On that account, it seems to me that a Vote of £32,850 for an Emergency Research Bureau would not be sufficient to entice the best class of inventive or scientific brains in the country for the sort of work that they would have to do.

In regard to that matter, perhaps I may mention one natural product, which is indigenous to our own country, but which is of tremendous importance, not alone in normal times, but particularly in the present emergency, that is, the matter of our supplies of wool. Now, it appears to me to be an extraordinary thing—and I am sure that many Senators here would agree with me—that for many years past we have had to import millions of pounds worth of wool from other countries, while, at the same time, we had to export a great portion of the wool produced in our own country. I am putting the suggestion to Senators—some of whom, probably, know just as much about wool as I do —that one of the objects to which the activities of the Bureau, obviously, should be directed, would be a method of rendering our wool into the fine quality of yarn that is used here. It seems to me that yarn of a fine type could be produced here from our own wool—yarn that would be at least as good as the yarns from wools which we have to import to-day.

I pleaded on another occasion that, if possible, the Industrial Research Bureau should be put into closer contact with Irish manufacturers and Irish industrialists. I know that this Bureau is under the personal supervision of the Taoiseach himself, so to speak, but I submit that there is a sort of a barrier created between the ordinary manufacturers or industrialists, in this country, and the Industrial Research Bureau, and I am pleading for more co-operation between the people who discover and invent things and those who eventually make use of their discoveries or inventions. I think there ought to be closer co-operation between the Bureau and the manufacturers, and I believe that I can say, on behalf of the manufacturers or industrialists of this country, that the amount of the Vote should be greater. Speaking for myself, I cannot see how any scientist or chemist, who makes any important discovery, could be adequately compensated, if the total amount of the Vote for industrial research is only to be £32,000 a year. In my opinion, the amount provided should be so attractive as to assure any scientist that, if he were to devote all his abilities to that work, he would be enabled to live here and devote himself to his researches without any monetary worries to embarrass him, and I think that the award to be given should be in proportion to the importance of his discovery. As it is nearly 6 o'clock, Sir, I do not know whether you wish me to go on, or to conclude now.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator can continue until 6 o'clock.

Mr. Kelly

I move the suspension of business. It was stated last night at 5.50 p.m., that business could be suspended then for the usual interval.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

Well, yes, but we have only about three minutes to go until 6 o'clock.

Mr. Kelly

I realise that, Sir, but the Senator has already suggested that it will take him some time to finish his remarks, and, therefore, I move the suspension of business.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

Very well.

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

Seanad Éireann debate - Thursday, 25 Nov 1943