Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Jul 1945

Vol. 30 No. 3

Minister for Supplies (Transfer of Functions) Bill, 1945—Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

As the House is aware, the main purpose of this Bill is to abolish the office of the Minister for Supplies and to transfer his functions to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and also to transfer the administration and business of the Department of Supplies to the Department of Industry and Commerce. It provides for the application of moneys, voted for the service of the Department of Supplies in the current financial year, to the same purposes, to be administered by the Department of Industry and Commerce in the future. It provides also for adaptation of references to the Minister for Supplies in various statutes and statutory documents and in Memoranda and Articles of Association of various companies. It provides for the continuance of licences that were issued by the Department of Supplies, and for legal proceedings which had been taken by the Minister for Supplies and which may not be concluded on the transfer date, and it also provides for the transfer to the Minister for Industry and Commerce of lands and property in the possession of the Minister for Supplies.

The decision to effect the amalgamation of the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Department of Supplies was arrived at because, in present circumstances, it is believed it will make for the more efficient working of both services. To an increasing extent, the business of supervising the supply position — procuring supplies from abroad and distributing them internally—is becoming associated with the problems of post-war development with which the Department of Industry and Commerce has been more and more concerned in recent months. It is to be hoped that the work done by the Department of Supplies during the emergency will diminish in the future, that no new restrictions upon supplies will become necessary and that the existing restrictions will, in course of time, disappear or, at least, be modified to such an extent as to require in lesser degree the services of a separate Department. On the other hand, it is to be assumed, and hoped, that the normal work of the Department of Industry and Commerce will develop again and that, to an increasing extent, the time of its officers will be turned to long-term planning and the immediate development work on which they were engaged prior to the outbreak of hostilities. The circumstances affecting both Departments suggest their amalgamation, particularly as that amalgamation will increase the efficiency of the services of the various sections of the Departments and permit of some economies.

I do not want to stress the economy aspect, because it was not for the purpose of economy alone the decision to effect amalgamation was taken. It was based primarily upon the consideration that the discharge of the public services entrusted to these Departments would be increased in efficiency and that the difficulties and problems associated with the bringing to a conclusion of the Department of Supplies, which was purely an emergency Department, set up for the purpose of dealing with matters arising out of the emergency and intended to terminate with the termination of the emergency, will be modified as a result of the amalgamation. Therefore I recommend the Bill to the Seanad.

Mr. Douglas

I see no reason to object to this Bill. The only thing that puzzled me, and it still puzzles me, is why the Department of Supplies was formed. I have never been able clearly to see the necessity for the two Departments and I shall not oppose the action of the Minister in bringing one of these Departments to a conclusion. I do not propose to waste the time of the House arguing back over the past as to whether the setting up of this new Department was wise or not. So far as trade and industry are concerned, they will welcome the decision of the Minister. I know that, in theory, there have been two Departments. I have been solemnly informed by officials that they were consulting the other Department, located in the same building. I have no doubt that such consultation took place but I have much doubt as to the necessity for such consultation. What is proposed by the Government now is acceptance of the realities of the situation. That should tend towards efficiency and should simplify, if it is possible to do so, many of the functions carried out by the two Departments.

To the mind of the ordinary man, the two Departments have been virtually one. I know that there have been certain distinctions of function but most of us looked upon them as one Department, with the Department of Supplies as the predominant partner. By a special concession now, it is losing its name but I rather hope that it will still be the predominant partner —at any rate so far as its official staff is concerned. It does not seem to me that this is the time to write the epitaph of the Department, whether that epitaph be favourable or unfavourable. It will be possible to come to an adequate and fair judgment on its work only after the lapse of two or three years.

It would be very easy for me to state at considerable length the matters in regard to which I think the Minister came to wrong conclusions. It would be as easy for me to mention the matters in respect of which I was in agreement with the action of the Minister. Possibly, that would be in order on this Bill but it would be, to some extent, irrelevant and I do not want to treat this as an occasion when a great Department of State is disappearing but rather as an occasion when we are giving legal effect to what has been slowly and gradually taking place and which it is desirable should take place.

I was quite frankly critical of the actions taken by the Minister on a number of occasions, but I think that I do represent, to some extent, the manufacturers and, to a considerable extent, the traders, and when I say that the general consensus of opinion is that we always received courtesy from the Department and that, taken as a whole, the Department succeeded in getting a very efficient set of men to operate on its behalf. A good many of the mistakes of the Department—if they were mistakes— were attributable to Government policy and those that were attributable to individuals were due largely to the fact—this is the only criticism I shall make and I make it because it may have some relevance in the future-that as soon as the officials became really familiar with the work, from our point of view, they were liable to be turned on to a completely different type of work. That did not always happen but it did happen in the case of quite a number of officials who had to do with business details. It did not apply to the senior officials but it did apply to a considerable extent to other officials. I suggest to the Minister that, during the time, which, I hope, will be short, and which, I am sure, he hopes will be short, in which licensing and control will be necessary by the Department of Supplies, he should make an effort to keep the same officials handling the same work. That would lead to efficiency and would be appreciated by traders generally. It should not be impossible Departmentally to arrange that officials would not suffer in the matter of promotion because of this arrangement. We have to make these arrangements in business.

Oftentimes a man who would be entitled to promotion by going elsewhere is kept in the same position for the sake of convenience, and steps are taken to secure that he does not suffer in respect of salary or promotion because of that. It would be most unfortunate if, in relation to such matters as control of imports, exports and production, we were to have a new set of officials after the change-over who would have to learn the business. I am giving the opinion of traders and manufacturers generally when I say that I hope that will not be so. On this Bill, a discussion as to the work of the Department of Supplies during the war period would not be appropriate. This is a purely administrative Bill, and not a Bill suited to such discussion.

Mr. Summerfield

I should like to support the remarks of Senator Douglas with regard to the relations of the now defunct Department of Supplies and the industries and trades with which its operations were concerned. It was a Department of which it could be said that during its existence it got more kicks than ha'pence. Much of the criticism was felt to be desirable and necessary, but I think it would be very churlish if I, as another representative of industry, did not now pay my tribute to the Department officials for the amount of help and assistance they gave traders generally. There were times when their actions caused a lot of ill-feeling and soreness, but, taking it by and large, as has been said by Senator Douglas, and speakers in the other House, it is a matter of surprise, not that that Department made so many mistakes, but that it made so relatively few. I do feel that at least I should pay that little tribute to the officials of the Department, and I am sure others feel as I do about it. In saying that, may I also express the hope that, although the functions of the Department are to be continued, the day is not very far distant when the need for such functions will disappear. We do feel that there is a danger that the exercise of power and control has gone on for so long that it has become a habit, not merely with senior officials. May I say in the presence of the Minister, who is now losing one of his functions, but who still retains both in an individual capacity, that there is the danger that these officials do not see how irksome the exercise of these controls and powers is to the people over whom they are exercised. I do not want to retract anything from the tribute I have already paid to the Department, but I do again express the hope that the need for all restrictions and control will disappear in the very near future, and that traders and manufacturers will again be permitted to carry on their business in that competitive fashion which alone can make for efficiency.

Liam O Buachalla

Is maith liom go bhfuil an oiread sin de na Seanadóirí fábharach don bhille seo. Sílim go mbeimid go léir ar intinn fáilte a chur roimhe. 'Mo thaobh féin de, is maith liom go bhfuil seo os ár gcomhair, mar is comhartha é, ar shlí, go bhfuil an tráth tagtha a mbeimid a tosaí, diaidh ar ndiaidh, ar neartú agus leathnú tionnscal na tíre a thógáil idir lámha aris. Is dona linn go raibh orainn éirí as an obair sin sé bliana ó shoin ach is maith linn go bhfuil an chosúlacht ann gur i bhfeabhas a bheas an scéal sin ag dul feasta,

Is maith liom aontú leis an moladh a tugadh d'oifigigh na Roinne Soláthairtí. Is ceart dúinn ár mbuíochas a ghlacadh le gach duine acu ón duine is aoirde go dtí an duine is ísle as ucht chomh maith agus chomh héifeachtach agus a rinne siad a gcuid oibre le linn na Práinne. Is fíor don tSeanadóir Summerfield san áit a dúirt sé go raibh iomarca poiblíochta ag na miondearmaid a rinne lucht na Roinne agus gan an áird cheart á thabhairt ar an obair mhóir fhóintigh a rinneadh an fhad a bhí an phráinn ann.

Le linn dúinn ar mbuíochas a chur i gcéill do na hoifigigh, is ceart dúinn a chur in iúl don Aire féin ar an ócáid seo chomh mór agus atámid uile go léir buíoch de de bhárr na hoibre móire a rinne sé féin an fhad agus bhí cúram trom Aireachta na Soláthairtí air.

Is dona mar rinne dreamanna áirithe sa tír cur isteach air agus mar rinne siad iarracht baint de thairbhe a chuid oibre.

Is maith chomh soiléar agus a thaspáin an pobal taobh amuigh, gach uair dá bhfuair siad an deis chuige, an meas mór atá acu air agus ar a chuid oibre mar Aire Soláthairtí. Agus ár mbuíochas sinne a chur in iúl don Aire ar an ócáid seo, níl á dhéanamh againn ach an rud ba mhaith leis an bpobal sinn a dhéanamh.

I want to join in the welcome extended to this Bill, mainly, because to me it is something in the nature of a landmark which indicates that we are about gradually to get back to a resumption of the work of industrial development which unfortunately we had to leave off six years ago. I should like to join also in the tributes paid to the Department for its work during the emergency. I desire to underline the remarks made by Senator Summerfield when he said in effect, that too much attention has been paid to the minor mistakes made by the Department and practically no attention to the marvellous work it achieved in spite of enormous difficulties. While paying our tribute to the officials of the Department, from the highest to the lowest, I think it is only right that we should pay tribute on this occasion also to the man who was responsible for framing their policy, who was responsible in the Department and outside it for seeing that that policy was effectively carried out. I am very happy to think that notwithstanding the efforts made to undermine his work and to belittle all that he achieved, on every occasion that the public got an opportunity of expressing what it thought, it made no mistake in expressing appreciation. To-day, in paying tribute to his work, we are merely in line with the public in expressing our appreciation of all the Minister did to maintain essential supplies during the years of the emergency.

Mrs. Concannon

Senator Douglas and Senator Summerfield have spoken on behalf of the industrialists and people employed in trade, and Senator O Buachalla from the height of his professorial chair. I speak on behalf of the women of Ireland, for whom the work of the Department has been of such enormous advantage. The Minister and the officials of the Department had a tremendously difficult job in trying to divide as fairly as possible among the whole people of Ireland, rich and poor, the resources of the country, and whatever goods were imported. I think everybody in this House is glad to have the opportunity of expressing appreciation of the very efficient manner in which the Minister discharged his difficult task, and I think we are all glad to avail ourselves of this opportunity, the first since the Minister has come to this House in his capacity as Tánaiste, to say how pleased we are that he has been honoured with that office.

Mr. S.T. Ruane

Now that the Department of Supplies as such is being would up, my only regret, a regret shared by many people, is that the circumstances which led to the formation of that Department have not also passed. I refer to the shortage of supplies which still necessitates a system of rationing throughout the country. There is a matter of very grave concern to the vast majority of the people with whom I have been associated from time to time, namely the question of the tea ration. In the adjoining country it has been found possible since the cessation of the war in Europe to increase the tea ration to five times the quantity of the ration in this country.

An Cathaoirleach

That is a matter of administration which does not arise on this Bill.

Mr. Ruane

I shall not say anything more on that question, but I think I would be quite in order in referring to an industry which has come into existence during the war, and which is of vital concern to the people of the part of the country from which I come, namely turf production.

An Cathaoirleach

I am afraid that is a matter which does not arise on the Bill, either.

Mr. Ruane

I should like to be associated with the terms of approbation which have been extended to the officials concerned with the allocation of supplies during the emergency. I know that many hard things have been said about them but, at the same time it is undeniable that since they got into their stride, they have done their work remarkably well. On every occasion that I appealed to them or made representations to them on behalf of constituents, I found that in the main they were very anxious to help in almost every case. In one case in which I was particularly interested myself, I found the help and guidance of the Department of Supplies of great assistance during a very trying period. While I have no hesitation in paying them that tribute, I am certainly in agreement with the hopes that have been expressed that the time will soon come when Departmental interference in, ordinary business will not be necessary, and when business people throughout the country will be able to carry on their business without interference from the Department.

I hope the quantity of supplies available in the country will soon be sufficient to render unnecessary further interference by officials of the Department with traders throughout the country. Those people who are anxious to start new businesses—I know several of them who have come into the country with some capital— must be afforded an opportunity of securing supplies of shopkeeping lines, to enable them to carry on and to give the employment which is very necessary in many districts.

Mr. Duffy

The impression is being created in the minds of members of this House that because the functions of the Department of Supplies are being transferred to another Department, the Department of Supplies and all it implies goes by the board. The Minister made it perfectly clear that that is not so. The dual office which he held disappears, but the Minister, a tually in person, remains responsible for the supply services and the Department of Industry and Commerce. This has misled Senator Summerfield and some of us into becoming jubilant immediately, to suggest that all controls disappear, and that the sky is the limit and that the industrialists will be happy for evermore. While we all desire that the supply situation should be such as to enable the removal of the great majority of the controls, we must realise the position has not reached that stage, and that it would be a disaster of the first magnitude if controls were removed in respect of many articles which are in short supply and which are likely to be so for a long time to come.

So far as I am concerned, I want to go on record as stating that in my view it would be an error of judgment to remove controls in respect of commodities which are in short supply and in respect of commodities in which those with the monopoly—those who got in on the ground floor—can make unlimited profits. I feel, however, that there is little need to impress that view on the Minister. I think it corresponds pretty well with what he has said himself recently, and for some considerable time, in regard to the situation, but I feel we should not let this point go by default. So far as the administration of the Department is concerned, there is general agreement that it was confronted with a very big and difficult task, and that that task was dealt with in an excellent manner.

Everyone who has spoken has borne testimony to the courtesy of the Department's officials and their axiety to meet often unreasonable demands and unresonable requests. They have done that, I think, in a very exemplary manner. At the same time it would be a mistake to assume that no errors were made. Some serious errors were made, but we need not discuss them now. It is sufficient to say that the public must not be left under the impression that because the Department of Supplies as such is being abolished, the supply system is also abolished. It should be made perfectly clear that the system is being continued, for the present, at any rate.

Mr. Sweetman

While I want to be completely associated with the remarks made by Senator Douglas as to the courtesy and consideration of the officials of the Department now being wound up, I do want to refer to one matter. The Bill itself provides for the transfer of the functions of the Department of the Minister for Supplies. While I gladly welcome that transfer of the functions, I do so in the hope that under the Department of Industry and Commerce the method of dealing with the claims of those who had their property taken over in County Kildare will be more accelerated. I think the Minister will agree with me that the delay in dealing with compensation claims in the cases where bogs have been acquired in County Kildare has created a great deal of unrest and a certain amount of justifiable friction. The people there feel that they have not been treated very fairly, that while it may be necessary in the national interest to acquire their property, the Department of Supplies, which we are now winding up, did not deal as expeditiously as it should have dealt with the assessment of compensation and the payment of that compensation.

I, therefore, take advantage of this opportunity to ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce, as the Minister about to be in charge of these functions, to give us an assurance to-day that those matters will receive more expeditious attention in the future and that he will endeavour, as soon as possible, to clear away all outstanding difficulties in that respect.

There is a feeling abroad that in the administration of the powers of acquisition necessary during the emergency period, consideration in many instances was not paid to local amenities and I hope that the new Department carrying out the same functions will set a better example. While saying that, I subscribe wholeheartedly to what Senator Douglas said about the courtesy and consideration of the Department as a whole, but there have been cases—it was inevitable there should be cases having regard to the number dealt with—where the treatment of individuals has not been very satisfactory. There was one particular case in which, in consequence of the taking of a man's land, his stock was able to get on to the public road.

After representations, a very fine pair of gate piers and a fine gate was set up and so far as anything that wanted to travel the road was concerned that would have been an excellent barrier, but the people who put up the gate and the pier knew they were being put up for the purpose of retaining stock, and yet they allowed a grass margin of six feet on each side of the pier so that if the cow had been trained to travel the road there would be no difficulty, but if the cow went round the corner it could get out over the grass margin.

These were some of the difficulties which, it was to be hoped, would receive more expeditious attention from the new administration of the Department. The Minister will admit that it is necessary to wind up cases about compensation and to ensure that the people who have had their livelihood taken from them in County Kildare by the acquisition of bogs which they were using will be treated in a generous manner so as to ensure that there will be the same happy reciprocation between them and the new Department, as Senator Douglas told us existed between traders in general and the old Department.

Mr. P.J. O'Reilly

I do not know if I would be quite in order in calling the attention of the House to Section 10 of the Bill which refers to the granting of licences by the Minister for Supplies.

An Cathaoirleach

That matter could be dealt with more effectively on the Committee Stage of the Bill.

Mr. P.J. O'Reilly

Without going into details, might I make a general suggestion on the lines of the previous speaker? This Bill marks a certain stage at which we can transfer functions from one Department to another. I would make the suggestion that certain action which the Minister found it necessary to take while acting as Minister for Supplies might be reviewed at this stage.

What I have in mind particularly is that certain permits for motor vehicles were revoked by the Minister because he found it necessary. I suggest this would be a good time to reconsider these cases which we all know are inflicting serious hardship.

An Cathaoirleach

I am afraid you could hardly deal with them under this Bill.

Mr. P.J. O'Reilly

I feel that the citing of individual cases in this debate might take away from the tribute due to the Department of Supplies. It is generally agreed in this House and throughout the country that the Department has served the community very well during a critical period. Tributes have been paid by industrialists. I want to pay a tribute from the ordinary man's point of view. Tribute is due to the Department because of the great success of the rationing system. Were it not for the great success made of the rationing system by the Minister for Supplies this country would not be in the happy position it is to-day. If we were to imagine what would have happened if our rationing system had collapsed during the war years we would have to agree that it would be a serious burden. One man would be placed against another and the best off man would get the most of the country's goods which were in scarce supply. If a breakdown had occurred, the poor would have got nothing, and a tribute is due to the Department which it would be a pity to spoil by the introduction of individual cases. I am sure that every member of the House could tell us of cases in which he considered there was hardship, but in the long run the Department has been a great success. Were it not for this success, and the value of the coupon—it became as valuable as the pound note—the pound note would also lose its value, as happened in fact in European countries in 1918 after the last war.

I do not think there is anything I might add except to remark upon the future of food control. Unless we are satisfied that the same control will continue to be exercised by the Department of Industry and Commerce, I think the Bill should be opposed, but once we are satisfied that the control will be continued, I think we may be assured that the supply position will be safeguarded. Even at this stage a very serious situation could arise if controls were to be withdrawn, but I am satisfied that in the new Department, under the same Minister, the position will be regulated in such a way as to give an even-handed deal to all the people and to ensure that consumers get their fair share of commodities in scarce supply.

I suppose we all hope that controls will be eliminated altogether soon. I feel sure that as soon as that position is arrived at, the Minister will remove the controls, but in the meantime the Department of Industry and Commerce should keep sufficient powers to ensure a fair supply for all sections in the country.

Mr. Lemass

It is my first duty to thank the Seanad for the tributes to the staff of the Department of Supplies which have been expressed by those Senators who spoke on the Bill. I think that these tributes are fully justified. Members of the Seanad, industrialists and traders, saw the work of the Department of Supplies from one angle only. I was privileged to see the work of the staff of that Department from another angle, and I would like to go on record as saying that it was the efficiency of the staff, their devotion to their duties, their willingness to accept greatly increased and often troublesome duties whenever necessary, which made my work as Minister, during the emergency, comparatively light—certainly much lighter than it might have been.

The effect of this Bill will be to amalgamate the staff of the Department of Supplies with the Department of Industry and Commerce. I can assure Senator Douglas that in the process of amalgamation it will be, naturally, my endeavour and the endeavour of the senior officers of the new Department to allocate the different sections and sub-sections of the Department to officers whose experience will enable them properly to discharge the duties arising.

The Department of Supplies grew from small beginnings. In the early stages of the emergency it was a very small Department indeed, reckoned by the number of staff in its service. As the emergency developed and new problems arose, the staff had to be augmented very considerably, and inevitably officers had to be taken from duties on which they were previously engaged and put on to other duties regarded as more urgent or more important, while the newer arrivals in the Department's service were given the easier and less difficult tasks.

That process of change continued while the growth of the Department continued and to some extent the proper staffing of the new Department of Industry and Commerce will require further changes, but it would be the normal course to pursue, and certainly the one that wisdom would suggest, to retain on the existing duties, where possible, officers who discharged these duties satisfactorily in the past.

It is quite true, as has been stated by some Senators, that the disappearance of the Department of Supplies as such does not mean that there has been any change in the supply position which makes it possible for us to contemplate the relaxation of certain restrictions, or the abolition of other controls, which emergency conditions called for. It is the policy of the Government to get rid of these controls as quickly as possible, but so long as there is a scarcity of essential materials it is necessary to retain rationing in some form and control of distribution and control of price. I hope that nobody will assume that with the enactment of this measure any of the existing controls deemed necessary in relation to existing conditions will cease to be operative, or cease to be enforced when the amalgamation is completed. I do not like to attempt any forecast as to future changes in the position, but I think it is extremely unlikely that any of the existing rationing schemes can be abandoned for 12 months, and some of them may have to be retained for a much longer period. Certainly, it will be two or three years before trade and industry will be operating upon what might be described as a normal basis, that is, some basis in which restriction upon the total quantity of goods available will not require Government supervision of distribution and use of essential commodities.

Senator Summerfield, and those for whom he speaks, may be assured that no power to deal with emergency conditions will be retained for one moment longer than it is required. Already a number of Emergency Powers Orders have been revoked by Orders made by me as Minister for Supplies under the general powers of the Emergency Powers Act, and Orders made by the Government as Government Orders. The process of revoking these Orders will be continued as changes in the general conditions permit of it. I fear I cannot hold out any hope that the enactment of this measure will be accompanied by a general amnesty in respect of penalties imposed for offences against the Emergency Powers Regulations. The necessity for maintaining these regulations is as great now as it ever was, in fact, the necessity for the regulations and their enforcement is probably greater, because there is in the minds of people a feeling that the end of the emergency is approaching, and consequently they can be less particular in their adherence to the letter of the regulations than they were during the period when the war was actually in progress in Europe. There is always a temptation to people to take a chance. That temptation is increased by delays in the legal machinery which make a situation in which the hearing of charges before a court frequently takes place many months after the offences have occurred.

If the trading community felt that the regulations themselves would be liable to be repealed before any offence they may have committed will be the subject of legal proceedings, then they would be tempted to expect lenient treatment and would be more likely to take a chance. On other occasions I have availed of the opportunity to make it clear that all these controls will be not merely enforced but will be made effective by the same means as in the past until they are formally abolished. When they are formally abolished then they will be no longer binding and nobody will have received preferential treatment as a result of their abolition.

I can assure Senator Sweetman that I share his desire to deal expeditiously with compensation claims arising out of turf development schemes, but there are many cases in which there are legal difficulties. In so far as delays have occurred they are not always attributable to the staff of the Department of Supplies. Other Departments are also concerned and the facts of individual cases do not permit of expeditious treatment. The desire to pay compensation promptly is shared by me and the officers of my Department.

On the matter of tea rationing, if I am not out of order I would refer Senator Ruane to a statement I made in the Dáil. I think that is all I require to say on this stage.

Question put and agreed to.

An Cathaoirleach

Next stage?

Mr. Hearne

This day fortnight.

Mr. Sweetman

Now.

Mr. Douglas

I think it would be better if the Minister would give to the House some reasonable explanation why we should take the next stage now. I am not referring to the present Minister, but some Ministers have come and asked us for the next stage immediately, with the result that the measure has been passed and we have put it through without the public knowing anything about it. Attention has been drawn to it afterwards. It is most unlikely that that would happen in this case, but it would be better it the Minister would give some reason.

Mr. Lemass

It is reasonable to assume that there will be little discussion on the other stages. Once the principle is agreed to the adoption of the other stages follows, more or less, automatically. The intention is to fix a date upon which amalgamation will become effective. There are various reasons why that date should be fixed fairly soon, but I do not want to press for the further stages now and it would do if the Seanad is meeting next week.

Mr. Hearne

It is agreed that we will not meet until this day fortnight.

Mr. Sweetman

Take the next stage now.

Agreed to take Committee Stage now.

Sections 1 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.

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

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister has referred to one matter, the practice by virtue of which a licence is revoked and sometimes causes very considerable embarrassment, on occasions, even to the justice concerned. I urge the Minister in cases where there are prosecutions, to ensure that it would be brought to the notice of the justice before he fixes any penalty if it is the intention of the Department to revoke the licence. This would occur only after an offender had been convicted, but before the justice imposes the penalty. If the licence referred to in this section is to be revoked, that intention should be notified to the justice before he fixes the penalty so that he will not fix one penalty and the Minister then come along and fix a second penalty. It is a matter the justice should take into account when he is fixing the penalty. I am not suggesting that licences should not be revoked. I am merely suggesting that all the facts should be before the justice when there is a case arising out of a conviction on which the licence will be revoked.

Mr. Baxter

I would like to add this to what Senator Sweetman has said. I am not one of the members of the House who has had very much experience of being troubled by traders and others making appeals to me, but I feel it is contrary to the principle of law and justice that no indication should be given to the person whose licence is revoked as to the period for which that penalty is to be imposed. If I commit an offence I should be punished, but if a man loses his soul he knows he is going to Hell. In the case of breaches of the law, so far as the Minister for Supplies is concerned, when you have committed an offence you never know the degree of punishment.

Some cases, not so many, have been brought to my notice in a casual way, not through appeals for intervention, in which people have lost a permit for a motor car or tea or sugar licences. If I am to be put out of business, I ought to know the period for which I am to remain out of business. In some cases it may be a matter of months. One does not know. But one has got to live, and one is entitled to know the period of the punishment. The policy of the Minister is to take away a permit after the court has passed its judgment, and neither the defendant nor the justice in the case knows when the permit is going to be restored, or what prospect the defendant has of earning his livelihood. I do not agree with that. I think it is unjust, and not the way to appeal to people from the point of view of getting respect for the law.

Mr. O'Dea

I have just heard what Senator Sweetman and Senator Baxter have said, and I would like to say that I do not approve of the suggestion of notifying the district justice. The district justices are the judges as between the Minister and the defendant.

Mr. Sweetman

The trouble is that in this case they are not the judges.

Mr. O'Dea

They are the judges of the case before them. Up to the present, they know perfectly well that if there is a conviction the licence will be revoked. If they are told beforehand that it will be revoked, and they are supposed to take that into account, it will make it much more difficult for the Minister to cancel the revocation and give back the licence to the defendant. I know that licences have been given back after being revoked, and that is better than that you should have a hard and fast rule. I prefer that district justices should not be given any dictation. They administer the law very well, and it is better to leave them alone. There may be differences in the penalties. Some are more severe than others, but it is very hard to know when they are really more severe. A penalty of 10/- imposed on a man in Connemara may be as great as a penalty as £10 imposed on a man in another county. I would like to have all these matters left to the absolute discretion of the district justices.

Mr. Lemass

I think Senator O'Dea has put his finger on the main point. The justice is concerned only with the case before him. He has merely to decide the case and what is the appropriate penalty. The revocation of a licence to trade in any particular commodity is not intended as a penalty. It is not a punishment, it represents a decision by me, as Minister responsible, that a particular trader, having regard to the general circumstances arising out of the conviction, is not to be trusted in the distribution amongst the public of essential commodities which are scarce. When a trading licence is cancelled it is not very often that it is restored. That may happen in one or two cases where the circumstances are exceptional or it may happen that the notice to revoke the licence was not proceeded with when it was discovered, on examination of the circumstances, that no other channel of distribution could be found for a particular locality and that the convicted trader, unsatisfactory though he may be, was the only effective means of getting supplies into the locality.

In answer to Senator Baxter, I would say that when trading licences are revoked they ordinarily stay revoked. There is no question of restoring them, and the person concerned will not be concerned in the sale of the commodities over which control is exercised until the control is removed altogether. That does not apply in the case of a car permit. Misuse of a car permit, whether a private or hackney vehicle, is not an offence under the Emergency Powers Orders of the same kind as the sale of tea at an excessive price or outside the ration. In such case the withdrawal of the permit is not as a rule for an indefinite period. In accordance with administrative practice the permit is restored after some months. Another penalty is frequently imposed, namely, the reduction of the amount of petrol allowed to the permit holder corresponding to the amount of petrol misused. If the licence was revoked a problem would arise in selecting new persons to whom a licence would be issued in order to provide the hackney service.

A problem would arise when the local dispensary doctor or clergyman was deprived of his car in giving the public the service for which they were allowed the car. I have frequently endeavoured to make it clear that the granting of a permit is not intended to give holders a convenience that other members of the public are not given. It is intended to enable them to discharge some duty which the public require from them. Consequently the withdrawal of a permit in consequence of the misuse of a car is really a penalty on the public rather than on the individual concerned. In such cases the temporary withdrawal of the permit or the reduction of the petrol allowance is merely designed to bring home to the individual concerned the necessity for adhering to the regulations.

The suggestion therefore which Senator Sweetman made is one that it would be unwise to adopt. It implies that the withdrawal of the permit is intended as a penalty on the individual. It should be clear that a penalty is not intended as such. It is a reorganisation of the method of distributing essential commodities by the elimination of traders who have shown in the past they cannot be trusted to distribute them fairly. As an administrative matter it is not the appropriate concern of a district justice at all. Such permits as are cancelled consequently remain cancelled.

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister, if he reads the reports of ordinary criminal cases, will appreciate that a judge almost always inquires—I am not talking now about major offences or crimes, but of minor offences—whether a conviction will mean that the person concerned will also lose his employment. I suggest that there is a perfect analogy there in the case of a person losing his licence to trade meaning the loss of his means of livelihood—and that it ought to be at least a practice of the Minister's Department to inquire what the effect of the revocation of the licence will be, and if the person's livelihood is dependent on whether the licence is going to be revoked or not.

Mr. Lemass

Nobody could say that. That is dictated by the evidence revealed at the hearing and by the general circumstances of the case.

Mr. P.J. O'Reilly

I was very glad to hear the Minister say that there was an alternative to the revoking of a permit in the case of the withdrawal of motor car licences, because I have personal knowledge of two or three cases of licences being withdrawn or withheld for from five to seven weeks, which caused great inconvenience and even hardship to the people concerned. I interviewed some of the officials of the Minister's Department, and I must say that I have always found them extremely courteous, but in spite of representations made, not alone by myself but also by the people who initiated the proceedings, nothing has been done about those two or three cases, so far as I am personally aware. I suggest that it is a very great hardship that a man, who often has a large family dependent on him, should have his licence withdrawn—his only means of livelihood. That is why I suggested, earlier on, that consideration should be given to that particular type of case. When it is a question of a court case, I suggest that the people concerned have been punished severely enough. They have served a half, or, in some cases, two-thirds of their sentence already, and in view of the changed circumstances I think that this would be a very favourable time for the Minister to review these cases, particularly as he has admitted that there is an alternative form of penalty. I think that that would be better because, at the moment, depriving these men of a permit means that they and their families are almost starving, and it certainly will not ensure that the new arrangement will begin under the best possible auspices. Accordingly, I would appeal to the Minister to avail of this opportunity now to extend this to cases such as I have mentioned. They have all been punished already, and some of them very severely, and since this new arrangement has the good will of all concerned I would appeal to the Minister to look into that particular type of case and remit the punishment that has already been imposed. I must say that, apart from the personal hardship on these men, a lot of inconvenience is also caused to the people in the locality concerned.

Mr. Lemass

While I agree with a good deal of what the Senator has said, I would not be in favour of anything like a general amnesty. It was found by experience that the cars owned by a great many of these hackney-car owners were used, not for the convenience of the public, but for the personal convenience of the owners. Some of them took out the licence for that purpose only, and in such cases I do not think that the permit should be restored at all. Before the war, many vehicles were registered as hackneys but it was found that the cars were not being used for the convenience of the public at all, but for the convenience of their owners. Where that was found to be so, the licence was cancelled, and I think it is right that such a licence should be cancelled and that it should not be restored. In the case of a hackney-car owner, dependent on the hackney-car for his livelihood, if it was found that he had committed an offence on one occasion against the regulations, restoration of the permit would be made after a period, and in any such case, representations made on behalf of the individual concerned, by either Senators or Deputies, will be considered in relation to the particular family circumstances, which is often a ground of appeal, because it is quite clear that in one case a revocation of the licence for three months might be a greater hardship than the revocation of the licence for a longer period in another case: that the revocation of the licence for a short period in one case might be a more severe penalty than its revocation for a longer period. I agree with that, but I could not agree with a general amnesty.

Mr. Baxter

I should like to ask the Minister—I have no knowledge of this matter—whether any definite time is set in regard to the revocation of a licence?

Mr. Lemass

No, there is not.

Mr. Baxter

I think that that is a defect, because it means that when these permits are withdrawn or withheld for a certain period, people down the country think that the way to go about the restoration of the licence is to approach a Deputy or Senator. They think that that is the way to go about it and that, if you have sufficient influence, your permit can be restored. It appears to me that that is fundamentally unfair and unjust and that there ought to be a limit to the extent of the punishment.

Mr. Lemass

So there is, administratively, but the circumstances in one case are different from those in another.

Mr. Baxter

Well, I had one case brought to my notice within the last few months. In that case, the man concerned asked me how long the withdrawal of his permit would continue. He wanted to know whether it would be for three months or for six months, and the individual concerned was anxious to know what he was to do. He wanted to know whether his permit was finally revoked or when it would be restored.

Mr. Lemass

In normal cases, it is rarely longer than three months. Complete revocation of the permit only happens in cases where the vehicle concerned was not used for hackney purposes at all, but for the personal use of the owner.

Mr. Baxter

But how is that to be determined? Is it by some one like myself going to an official of the Department of Supplies and saying to him: "Oh, have some sense about this case"?

Mr. Lemass

Such a representation rarely influences the decision of the Department.

Mr. Baxter

Yes, I know that.

Mr. Lemass

For instance, a point-to-point meeting may be held in County Mayo, and a dozen hackney-car owners lose their licences as a result of attending that meeting. Irrespective of the representations received, the general practice would be that these people would all get their permits back at the same time.

Mr. Baxter

Suppose that it is not a question of a hackney car owner but of a clergyman or a medical man, or one of the privileged people, if one might describe them as such, who are entitled to permits: what would happen in such a case?

Mr. Lemass

A great deal depends, and must depend, on the circumstances of each case.

Mr. Baxter

What change can come in the circumstances, on the date on which the permit is revoked, that will make the Minister or his responsible officer decide that, instead of three months, it is to be two and a half months or that instead of four months it is to be three months?

Mr. Patrick O'Reilly

Essential facts, put before the Department, might alter the whole position.

Mr. Baxter

Well, I do not know what experience the Senator has. I shall approach him the next time that I want anything done, but my view is that when a licence is revoked the person concerned should be told how long the revocation will be for. I think that that really would be the proper way of dealing with the matter, instead of this business of feeling that if you get enough Senator O'Deas or Senator O'Reillys to make representations it would be all right, instead of asking Senator Baxter. I do not mean to introduce political questions into this, but I do want to know whether I can inform these people if I can do anything about the matter or not, because otherwise, I do not want to be bothered about it.

Mr. Lemass

Even if there were a revocation of a permit for a certain period, that would not prevent Senators or Deputies being approached in the case of clergymen who are doing their parochial duties, or doctors carrying out their medical duties, but it must be remembered that some of these people might be 80 years of age and could not be expected to carry out their duties by riding on a bicycle, while others might be very much younger and could easily do so. Individual circumstances have to be taken into account. It is not the same thing to require one of these men to do his duty on a bicycle as it is to require the other. Normally, in the case of persons of that class, the permit would not be revoked unless it was clear that the individual concerned had flouted the regulations on more than one occasion, and had knowingly done so. In the ordinary case of slight misuse, no further action is, I think, taken than to write to the individual concerned referring him to the regulations and requesting him to adhere to them in future. It is only where there has been a sort of persistent misuse of the vehicle, or misuse in such form as to create the possibility of public comment or public belief that the individual concerned has got privileges which other individuals in the same class have not got, that the revocation of the permit is affected. Normally, that revocation is not maintained for more than three months. It is only in circumstances which are exceptional that the revocation extends beyond three months.

Mr. Baxter

Why is that not stated?

Mr. Patrick O'Reilly

When I said a few moments ago that essential facts might come to the notice of the Department, I was not answering for the Minister nor had I any particular knowledge in that regard. My remark was in the nature of a suggestion as to what I should like to be the position. When Senator Sweetman said that it should be intimated to the district justice, before arriving at his decision, whether or not a licence would be revoked, the Minister said that revocation was not a punishment but merely action taken by the Minister in the exercise of his duty, having regard to the circumstances of a particular case. I think that the Minister is quite correct in taking that view. The Minister is justified in revoking a licence when he considers that the holder has abused his privileges under the licence. He is justified in doing that in cases in which a person has sold tea, sugar, or butter, which he received for normal distribution to his customers, at a higher price than that fixed. In my opinion, that person should be punished, because his is a greater crime than many other offences. I do not agree completely with the Minister when he says that, when a licence is revoked, it is revoked, and nothing can be done about it. There can be cases in which licences are revoked and in which, in the light of facts later elicited, it could be fairly strongly argued that there had been a slight miscarriage of justice. Where there has been even a slight miscarriage of justice, I think that the licence holder is entitled to have the position rectified. I know a case in which a licence holder got a double quantity of sugar through a miscalculation on his part. That was not discovered by the Department for some time. That trader was entitled to a supply of sugar for catering, which was another part of his business. Through his own fault, he had not got that supply and, when he got the double supply for distribution in his business he utilised it for catering purposes. His licence was revoked—quite properly, but in the light of the facts which later transpired, I think the Minister should reserve power to grant the licence again in such a case. The Minister is quite correct in revoking a licence in every case where there has been a conviction but he should reserve power to re-grant the licence if he considers that exceptional hardship is being imposed on the trader.

Sections 10 to 14 agreed to.

Question proposed: "That Section 15 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Sweetman

Is the effect of this section to continue the proceedings automatically, or will it be necessary for one of the parties to make application as in the case of a death? As the section is phrased, it seems to me that an application will be necessary in every case.

Mr. Lemass

I do not think so.

Mr. Ryan

In the ordinary case, where a person dies, the action abates and it is necessary to revive it by substituting the personal representative of the deceased person as a party. This section expressly provides that the proceeding shall not abate. The Minister for Industry and Commerce is substituted for the Minister for Supplies in the title of the proceedings, and, therefore, no further steps are necessary. The section effects the continuance of the proceedings.

Sections 15 and 16 agreed to.

Question proposed: "That Section 17 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

On this section, which provides for the short title, may I congratulate the Minister on his impersonation of the phoenix? He immolates himself but rises triumphantly from the ashes.

Section 17 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Agreed to take the next stage now.

Bill received for final consideration.

Agreed to take the Final Stage now.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass".

Mr. Duffy

In my remarks on this motion, I want to make clear that I am not finding any fault with the manner in which the Act has been administered. I do not urge that unreasonable penalties were imposed, but I suggest that the situation has so changed that the Minister might well consider having future prosecutions tried in the regular courts rather than in an exceptional court. I can well understand that, in the circumstances of the last three years, it was, probably, necessary to have recourse in certain cases to the Special Criminal Court, but that situation is rapidly altering. I do not want to be taken as complaining that the Special Criminal Court was an unfair court. I do not think that it was. Statements made to me by lawyers practising in that court confirm the view that it was impartial, competent and efficient.

I am basing my case for departing from that practice on the principle that the State should not have recourse to special courts for the trial of civil offences save in exceptional circumstances. We ought to get back as rapidly as we can to the trial of these cases by the ordinary civil courts. I urge the Minister, if he finds that it is not in his power when this Bill is implemented to determine the court in which a prosecution will be brought, and if that is to be decided by some other authority, that he should come back to the Oireachtas for power to enable him to determine that these prosecutions will be brought in civil courts.

Sir John Keane

I should like to endorse the plea made by Senator Duffy. I feel that there is great danger in extending the category of cases to go before special courts. The only cases which should go before these courts are cases that have a political aspect, in which certain pressure might be brought to bear which juries would be unable to resist. We should, as soon as possible, get back to having all other cases decided by civil courts.

Mr. Foran

I sincerely hope that the Minister is not going to be influenced by the unholy combination which we have just seen and the appeals which we have just heard. Could there have been any greater criminals than the people who were brought before these courts during the emergency—saboteurs, black marketeers, etc.? Now we have certain people, representatives of capital and labour, so interested in them that they want to make it easy for these people to carry on in future.

Mr. Duffy

We want to restore civil rights.

Mr. Foran

Civil rights, yes, but these people are saboteurs. They are not entitled to civil rights; their rights should be taken from them. Nobody could defend their actions in a crisis such as we passed through here when these people, for their own petty interests, tried to exploit the community. Still, we have this unholy combination making an appeal to the Minister to have them tried by the ordinary courts. I sincerely hope that the Minister will not consider for one moment reducing the penalties on people who are prepared to exploit the community.

Mr. Douglas

There are one or two matters to which I would have referred if I had known beforehand the trend which the debate was going to take. I think I am entitled to refer to these matters now. First of all I should like to say that I agree with the case made by the "unholy combination" and that I am completely horrified by the remarks of Senator Foran. Senator Foran has decided in his own mind that everybody charged at these courts were saboteurs and black marketeers. Why then bring them before a court at all? Why not deal with them in the regular dictatorial fashion? If, however, you are going to try people, you should try them before courts in which people will have the greatest possible confidence and let the people feel that they have been tried in the fairest possible way. Many cases have been tried before the military court, but I think everybody, even the Minister, will agree that we want to get away from that as soon as possible. Certainly the principles enunciated by Senator Foran revealed a mentality which I thought did not exist amongst the members of any Party in this House, and I hope that on reflection he will change his mind.

The matters, to which I want particularly to refer, arose out of the first part of the discussion. I quite sincerely expressed approval and praise of actions of the Department, on the assumption, which was made perfectly clear by the Minister, that this was a transfer of functions, but Senator O Buachalla thought it was a landmark— in other words, that we have reached a stage in our history where we were getting away, or any rate commencing to get away, from the shortage caused by the war. Anyone who has any actual knowledge of the supplies position knows perfectly well that, in regard to a large number of commodities, the position is worse than it has been at any time during the war. That may not apply to every commodity but it applies to a certain number and any one who entertains any other idea is simply digging his head in the sand. I know the Minister has no such idea. This Bill does not mean that we are abolishing the Department of Supplies but that we are joining the two Ministries together and that we propose to carry on the functions of the Department of Supplies as heretofore.

The second remark I want to make is that there is a very great danger—and I find a certain amount of resentment expressed about it—that in a wild desire to throw bouquets at officials or Ministers, one may sometimes overbalance the praise. I think that, after what we have heard from Senator O Buachalla and Senator Mrs. Concannon, one is justified in saying that they got a little bit overbalanced. The plain truth of the matter is that we have gone through an extremely difficult situation during the past five or six years. We have not got out of that in some respects as well as we might, but in many respects we got out of it in a manner that we never dreamt of or expected. Some credit for that is due to the Minister, much of it is due to the officials of the Department, but a great deal of it is due to the shopkeepers and industrialists, who had to change their whole system, and who, I think the Minister agrees, rose to the occasion with a degree of efficiency that most of us did not altogether expect. There is a danger, when you start throwing bouquets in that way, of making it appear that one Department provided the whole supplies of the country. That is no service to the Department, because it only means that you will have certain cynical remarks passed outside afterwards.

We had Senators Duffy and O'Reilly going to the other extreme. They want exactly the same system of control as was heretofore carried on. I do not. I am personally convinced that the situation from now on will in many respects be very different from that which it was during the war, and that different methods may have to be applied to deal with it. If you are not going to get rid of control, I think the problem will have to be viewed very largely from a different angle. For instance, the tendency as the war went on was to have more and more State control in other countries from which we got supplies. That cut out very often the personal contacts between the purchaser of supplies here and suppliers in other countries. I am convinced that if we are to get supplies, we should go to very considerable lengths to re-establish these personal contacts. I can easily conceive circumstances in which a Government or Government officials in other countries might be very much more reluctant to send supplies to this country than traders in the particular country who want to get back their trade. I give that as one instance in which we are approaching somewhat different circumstances in which different methods will have to be applied. I personally have not the slightest doubt that the Minister and his principal officials realise that. I think the public ought to recognise that, and that we should not be faced with demands such as we had from some Senators for a continuance of the same controls.

We hear talk about rationing. Senator O Reilly is not a member of this House very long. If he were, he would remember that we on these benches begged the Minister to institute a rationing scheme and argued with him when he was against it. Therefore we certainly are not going to object to such a scheme so long as it is necessary. On the whole, the rationing scheme was a success but I think that in a very short time the basis of the rationing scheme will have to be changed. I personally, as some Senators know, am interested in various textile commodities. In respect of some of these, frankly I have no hope of any serious improvement within twelve months. In the case of others, I shall be bitterly disappointed if there is not a marked improvement. It is quite likely that the Department which will be virtually the same Department, will have to reconsider the system of rationing. There is another matter which goes to show the changed attitude that will be necessary. The Department at the moment provides that shopkeepers will surrender all their coupons after a certain time and then start again after a period of about two months. That method worked perfectly well in most cases because the stocks of shopkeepers were going down but now you may get the reverse position when stocks will be slowly going up and whereas in the past they wanted less and less coupons, they will want more in future. There will therefore have to be some other system instituted. So far from its being a question of maintaining old controls, it will be a question of a different system and of different methods of control. The necessity for co-operation with manufacturers and traders will be just as great.

Again, a great deal of care will have to be taken in the control of prices. That is an extremely difficult matter. The most important thing to take into consideration is to see that whatever changes are made do not seriously interfere with employment. It is perhaps much too optimistic to talk about falling prices. There are certain commodities in which I have not the slightest doubt prices are far too high. In some cases that may be due to profiteering but I do not think it is. Once there is freedom in trade with other countries prices are going to drop.

I anticipate in certain trades, especially in one in which I am interested, that it will not be long until turnovers are considerably lower by reason of the fact that stocks all round will be cheaper. It is quite obvious that the profit required to keep employees going on £1,000 will not be adequate on £500. I do not want to take extreme cases. In the past the main supplies were dwindling and we must now look to slightly increased supplies and, if necessary, a different set of controls.

One of the reasons I am particularly glad to see the two Departments together is that I do not see how any industrial development which was supposed to be the business of the Minister for Industry and Commerce can be separated from the question of supplies, because any plans for any new development of industry depend to a very large extent on the supply position. Therefore, in common sense, the two Departments should be together.

Mr. Lemass

I want to begin by thanking the Seanad for agreeing to give me all stages of the Bill to-day. In connection with the trial of cases by the Special Criminal Court, I should point out that the decision as to whether any individual case will go to that court is taken by the Attorney-General and not by me. I can understand the existence of a desire to have some tribunal other than a military court for the hearing of cases of the kind that arise under these Emergency. Powers Orders relating to rationing and price control.

Senators who want to urge on the appropriate authority that the District Court alone should be used, are free to do so. I will urge strongly in the other direction. I will urge that where there are cases which have more than a local interest, and where there are more than local ramifications, there is need to maintain trial by the Special Criminal Court in substitution for trial by the District Court. It will go on record for the benefit of any Government with the responsibility of guiding this country through a war that District Courts are unsuitable instruments for the enforcement of Emergency Powers Orders in rationing, price control, or similar restrictions of a temporary character created by abnormal circumstances.

It may be that in the future, during a period when these controls have to be operated, some court other than a military tribunal will be created to which such cases can be referred as against the District Court, but if, on that date, there is no alternative court to the District Court I would urge that a Special Criminal Court should be employed.

Mr. Douglas

I hope you will not live long enough for that.

Mr. Hearne

What? He will not live five years longer?

Mr. Douglas

I hope it will not happen.

Mr. Lemass

I am preparing and I hope, at some stage, to complete notes for the guidance of future Governments in similar circumstances. One of these will be a strong recommendation that trial by District Court is an unsuitable method of securing the enforcement of regulations relating to the control of prices and the distribution of commodities.

I do not want to say anything arising out of the remarks of Senator Douglas relating to a number of matters which have concerned them or may concern them in the future. I am sorry that when he threw his cowslip on the grave of the Department of Supplies, he resented other people throwing bouquets. The fact that their bouquets did not contain brickbats was due to the fact that sometimes people throwing bouquets containing brickbats are liable to overbalance.

Mr. Douglas

That is the advantage of the cowslip—it will not hold a brickbat.

Mr. Lemass

The passage of the Bill means that the Department of Supplies will come to an end in the near future. It does not mean that the functions discharged by the Department will end. It means that the same staff will continue under the same management but under a different name.

Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered: "That the Bill be returned to the Dáil."