I move:—"That a sum not exceeding £628,365 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, to defray the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Local Government, including grants and other expenses in connection with housing grants to local authorities, sundry grants in aid, and the expenses of the office of the Inspector of Lunatic Asylums."
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - MINISTRY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
There are quite a number of very important matters that will require to be raised on this vote, but I want to raise a somewhat minor matter at the outset which will not excite perhaps acute controversy, and one might hope would have good results. I propose to do it by virtue of an amendment to the motion, that the Vote be reduced by £1,000. I am taking that sum so as to allow reductions of small amounts, for one thing, and because it more or less fits in with the amount of £880 indicated as being payable to the medical inspector and inspector of lunacy. The subject I want to draw the attention of the Dáil to, and more particularly that of the Minister, is the dispute at Letterkenny Asylum that has been going on for some time.
On this question of detail, would it not be well, if we are going to take questions of detail before we take the general question, to take the questions in the order in which they occur here under the sub-heads? Otherwise we shall be going backwards and forwards through the sub-heads. The procedure usually has been a general discussion of the policy, and afterwards, if Deputies so desire, to go through the sub-heads.
I am afraid I misled you. I only referred to that item under a sub-head as an indication of why I had chosen £1,000. The question I have raised is a matter of general policy, and it has to do with the relation of the Ministry to, and the policy of the Ministry in regard to matters which have led to a very unpleasant and unsatisfactory dispute in Letterkenny Asylum. This question of the control of asylums is one which is more national than local, but in any case the Ministry has taken upon itself the responsibility of supervising very strictly the conduct of asylums. A matter arose in February between the staffs of the asylum and the asylum committee arising out of a circular letter sent by the Ministry advising economies. In the course of that circular letter there was a reference to the necessity for revision in the present rate of wages; they should revise in all cases "with special reference to the rates current in the district." Now, the asylum committee responded to that by proposing new terms and conditions of employment to the staff. They did not do what one might have expected a committee of this kind should have done, a committee which had in fact and in effect made an agreement with the union to which the asylum attendants belong. They did not approach the union and have the matter discussed amicably. They simply laid it down that certain rates should follow at a certain time. It is a fact that in 1920, after several controversies between the asylum workers and the various asylums, there was a national conference called under the auspices of the county councils. After several discussions a general agreement was arrived at with regard to scales of pay, allowances and terms of employment. This agreement was entered into, signed by representatives of the committees, and generally accepted throughout the country. It is objected that no agreement was entered into by this asylum committee of Letterkenny, because their particular signature was attached to no agreement. As a matter of fact, they were represented on the committee which consulted, conferred and finally arrived at an agreement. The signatories to the agreement were persons representative of the committee, and this national agreement was arrived at, and up to this year the management committees of asylums have accepted the findings and acted up to them. Following the circular of the Minister, one or two boards considered this question, and most of them agreed that it was a matter for national arrangement, and could not be dealt with until there had been a further conference and a new settlement. The Letterkenny committee took another view, and insisted there should be a change and a considerable reduction in the rates of pay.
MR. GOREY
On a point of order are we discussing the affairs of the Letterkenny Committee? Have we any power to interfere with their methods of doing business, and what relation has it to the vote or to the Ministry of Local Government?
MR. JOHNSON
I think that will appear as we go along.
Yes.
MR. JOHNSON
The next step which leads to controversy was the retirement of the Head Attendant of this asylum on pension, and the appointment of a successor. The successor who was appointed as head attendant, it so happened, was a stone mason who had been in the employment of the Asylum Board for a considerable number of years. Contrary to the usual practice, the Ministry of Local Government sanctioned this appointment very speedily, indeed, much more speedily than such appointments are usually sanctioned. I think it was in ten days in this case, but apparently the fact had been overlooked by the Ministry that the person who had been appointed as head attendant responsible for the work and the control of attendants, and generally supervising the action of men who are asked now to qualify in a special manner for their duties, was a man who had no experience of attendants of that kind, and was, as I say, a stone mason.
That may have been a fact overlooked by the Ministry. They may not have recognised that this new head attendant was not competent by qualification to do the work of supervisor over the rest of the attendants, and it seems to me to be, or should have been at least, a very considerable factor in the question whether the Ministry ought to sanction such an appointment. There were people who had long service, and had all the qualifications required as attendants, who were passed over, but for a reason which I have not been able to divine, the local authority insisted upon the appointment of this stone mason, and insisted at the same time that he should withdraw his membership of the trade union. These considerations, the reduction in pay following the advice of the Ministry, the sanctioning by the Ministry of a stone mason to be head attendant, and the insistence that that stone mason should withdraw from the trade union led to a strike. Those are the bald facts, and I do not intend to go into very much detail, or to enlarge upon the matter up to that time. A good many incidents have followed, apparently a good deal of heat has been engendered on both sides, and apparently the people of Letterkenny are divided with a certain amount of intensity of feeling, and many bitter things have been said and many wrong things probably have been done on both sides.
There has been introduced into the hospital in attendance on the patients a considerable number of people who, I think, it will be admitted, in the ordinary course would not be recognised as fit persons to take care of lunatics in an asylum. All this has been done, it is suggested—I am not backing the suggestion because I cannot confirm it in any way—not merely with the sanction and approval of, but at the instigation of the Ministry, or the Ministry's officials. The position apparently is that the two bodies are locked in conflict, both of them are obstinate; one feels strong and the other feels equally strong, but the effect of it all is that the patients are suffering. The asylum is not being administered properly. The risk to the patients is probably greater than their certain suffering, but in addition to that a good deal of risk is being entailed by reason of the fact that people who ought to be in the asylum have been sent to their homes, and one never knows what may be the effect of having lunatics, many of them probably not capable of taking care of themselves, sent to their homes. My reason in raising the matter now is: I want if possible by drawing attention to it to prevent the development of this kind of trouble. As I say, there is a good deal of obstinacy on both sides, and the intention, to use a common phrase, to fight to a finish and all the rest of it. In this case the people who are going to be the sufferers and losers are the patients. I feel in regard to it that I could say things that are, perhaps, strong and somewhat bitter, but I do not want to say them. I want, if possible, to suggest to the Ministry that there ought to be a going back to the period before the strike began, that there ought to be a recognition that there was an agreement between the various asylums throughout the country with the union to which these workers belong, that that should not have been altered or attempted to be altered by one asylum authority without a general conference, and that to do so simply suggests to the men in this occupation, as it has been suggested in so many other occupations, that the Ministry is simply moving in the direction of breaking down the standard of living. To avoid even the appearance of that, steps should have been taken to get the various asylum authorities which had come to an agreement with the union in 1920 to come again to the union and endeavour to arrive at a new agreement. The union has been endeavouring for some long time now to tune up the quality and qualifications of attendants in hospitals, and to insist as far as possible that the tests that the Ministry have sought to be applied to all mental hospital attendants should be passed by such attendants. The policy which the Ministry in the past has attempted to enforce, and which has been played up to by the union concerned, is now overthrown at once in the case of this head attendant, with the added contention that he must no longer remain a member of the trades union as before. These are things, I think, which should have had the attention of the Ministry before sanctioning the appointment and before issuing instructions for these reductions in pay.
Taking into account, as I say, local considerations, which, by the way, has never been done by the present Government and its departments in dealing with policemen, soldiers and officials generally, I think the Ministry ought to recognise that in dealing with the position that has to be considered in respect of this Letterkenny dispute it should be treated as it was before the strike began. It should be recognised that there have been faults and obstinacies on the part of the committee, and acts on the part of the attendants and their supporters outside which have roused ill-feeling and bad blood—creating, as I say, the spirit of conflict to the death—that that should all be overlooked until you get to the root of the trouble. And the root of the trouble, I submit, lies in the fact that the Ministry has committed what I suggest were two grievous errors in their action, and it is the commission of these errors which has led to this unfortunate trouble in Letterkenny.
I raise this matter, and I raise it in this way, because I want the Ministry to endeavour to recover from the position which they have allowed themselves to get into, and, in effect, allowed the asylum in Letterkenny to get into. The position, I think, is one that is very unsatisfactory, and not at all likely to bring any credit to the administration of the Ministry in respect to the asylums. And, without going into any further detail, and for the purpose of allowing this matter to be dealt with by the Ministry, I beg to move the motion.
Mr. BURKE
I fail to see in Deputy Johnson's statement where I come into this matter at all. In his speech on the Local Government Bill, Deputy Johnson took me to task for interfering unduly with the work of local authorities. In this particular instance he is asking me to interfere in a matter in which I have got no jurisdiction.
You did interfere.
Mr. BURKE
I interfered to sanction the appointment of an officer whom Deputy Johnson seems to object to on the ground of his being a stone mason, which is really no disqualification at all. The lunacy officer in the district gave the highest recommendation to this person. And he has fulfilled his duties admirably, and I have no discretion in the matter but to sanction his appointment. I may say, with regard to this strike up in Letterkenny, that it has been a disgraceful performance. Even amongst uncivilised tribes—even amongst Red Indians— special care is taken of the mentally deficient. And if members of one tribe get lost amongst another tribe—even if the two tribes be hostile—if it is found that the lost ones are mentally deficient, those among whom they go never resort to any acts of cruelty or anything of that kind in regard to them. In this particular case the strike has been carried on by those responsible for it, at the expense of those unfortunate patients in Letterkenny; and I think nothing worse or more disgraceful has occurred in the whole history of disagreement between employers and employees. As I have said, I had no discretion in this matter, except to sanction the appointment of this man, to whom Deputy Johnson refers as a stone mason, because he has been recommended by the officer who is in a position to recommend him. And he has given every satisfaction to the local committee, who have absolute discretion in this matter.
Arising out of what the Minister has said, is he aware that the stone mason's predecessor, the man who was head attendant prior to this stone mason being appointed—is the Minister aware that that man had to pass a competitive examination to prove that he was fitted for the position, and had sufficient knowledge of nursing to fit him to take up the position of head attendant in the asylum? Can the Minister say that, before giving sanction to the appointment of this stone mason he assured himself that the stone mason was a man fitted to be put in charge of patients in Letterkenny Mental Hospital?
Mr. BURKE
I have to rely, on cases of this kind, on the advice of my officials, and the official lunacy expert has informed me that this man was in every way fitted for his duties; and it was on that recommendation that his appointment has been sanctioned.
Am I to understand that the Department will allow a Mental Hospital Committee to bring in any man off the street and put him in the position of head attendant, without any previous experience, and that that action will be sanctioned by the Ministry? That is what it amounts to.
Mr. BURKE
I am sure that the lunacy expert would never have recommended such an appointment.
Amendment put, and declared lost.
On the main question, I should like to say a word in support of the motion. But there are one or two points which I should wish to refer to. In South Mayo there was considerable distress during the last few months, and the Local Government Department undoubtedly did good work in supplying seed potatoes to the Unions there. They were also recommended to take further action than that. It was reported that there was serious distress in certain portions of the county, and inspectors were sent down. I am sure that the Department acted on the reports of those inspectors. But there were two districts, or one district consisting of two townlands, where the distress was exceedingly severe; and those inspectors returned home without visiting those districts. I visited them myself, and I was told by the priest—the local curate—that no inspector visited those places. I reported at Government Buildings about the serious distress in those places, but my report, perhaps, did not go to the Minister for Local Government. I sent it to the Land Commission, because I wanted work for those people. They did not want outdoor relief. They wanted some work, and there is any amount of reproductive work which could be done in the locality. Now I bring the matter formally before the Minister, and I would urge him to send inspectors to the districts Croaghrim and Glenmask, in the parish of Partry, where there is acute distress, according to the local evidence—the evidence of priests and others—and also to the adjoining portion of the County of Galway, particularly Maamtrasna, where there is also acute distress. There is another point I should also wish to speak on, on this Vote, and that is the question of old age pensions. I approve of the action of the Department in examining strictly all applications for old age pensions. I am entirely with them in rejecting cases where there is not sufficient evidence of age, or evidence on the question of means. But they must consider the position of these old people in looking for evidence of age.
First and foremost we have the fact that the records were not very well kept in the parishes in Ireland in the past, and, in cases where they were kept, during the last few years some of them were destroyed, and that gives rise to very serious difficulties for the applicants for old age pensions. Imagine those poor people when they face the task of discovering their ages. They have no notion where to look for the records. The old age pension expert, living in Dublin, entrenched behind his desk and documents asks the old age pensioner, "Where is your evidence?" They might as well expect some of these people to get the moon as the record of their age. If there is an onus upon the State to supply pensions, there should be, also, an onus, to a certain extent, to place facilities for finding evidence within the reach of those people. They should place within their reach the school records and the vaccination records, and give them every possible chance of supporting their case. A number of refusals of the Local Government Department to give pensions are based on the age of the applicant supplied on the occasion of his or her marriage. That is taking a very cruel advantage of the vanity of the ordinary man or woman at what was supposed to be the happiest moment of his or her life. There is, perhaps, no man or woman who has not knocked off ten or twenty years from the age at that period. It is not fair to bring that evidence against them, and it certainly is not reliable. I know people with 70 years of age printed upon their faces who have been turned down. I heard a priest say on one occasion, when the authorities were looking for documents to prove age "What better document could you have than that," pointing to the face of a poor old woman. I quite approve of the Department exercising the greatest care to see that they are not imposed upon. I am afraid they were imposed upon in the past. I am afraid I imposed upon them myself in the interests of some old people before the Treaty. While they are right in seeing they are not imposed upon now, it is, at the same time, a great wrong to keep people who are really 70 years of age out of the pension. The line should not be drawn too tightly, and I would urge that great care should be taken not to refuse the pensions to men and women over 70 years of age. While it is the intention of the Act to ensure that people of 70 years of age should not be refused the pension, I am afraid that a great many of them are refused it at the present time.
Mr. BURKE
The whole question of old age pensions is a very difficult one. As Deputy Sears himself has hinted, many looked upon old age pensions as fair game for anybody when the British were administering them. It was looked upon as legitimate for everybody to get this money when it was not the Irish taxpayer exclusively that was paying it. Now, however, we have to bear our own burden and it is necessary that this grant should only be given to those whose cases are absolutely bona fide. Owing to the position I am placed in the Dáil, having to answer in the negative applications from all over the country, raised by Deputies in regard to old age pensions, it may appear that I am straining the rules, but the trouble is that the Deputies never raise questions where old age pensions are looked for by persons who have no right to get them. My present attitude, in the administration of the old age pensions grant, is to administer it strictly in those cases where the families to which the old age pensioners belong are tolerably well able to look after them. But in cases where there is absolute certainty that the family is in a bad way, I am inclined not to be too particular in looking for absolute evidence as to whether the applicant is over 70 years of age or not, as I realise it is very difficult sometimes to substantiate that fact. I may remind Deputies that faces are a very bad criterion to go upon. You sometimes see people who are under 60 years of age but who look over 80. On the other hand, people who have not had such a hard battle in life look hale and hearty up to 80 years of age.
With regard to the distress in the west, that question was raised before and I am glad that, in this instance, Deputy Sears has put specific cases, as it is only in such cases that we can go into the matter fully. I might suggest, first of all, to Deputy Sears that it is primarily a question to be dealt with by the county. The County Mayo has an exceptionally low rate this year—lower than it was in 1914—and they have ample powers to relieve distress themselves. In the administration of the road grant I made the best of every opportunity to have that grant expended in those districts where the incidence of unemployment is high. I do not know whether that brings any relief to the district mentioned by Deputy Sears.
No.
Mr. BURKE
If not I will be prepared to give them special consideration, but as I say, it is a case primarily for the local authorities to deal with, as they have full power to apply relief. The rate is exceptionally low, and they should be able to do that without any great hardship.
I would like to call attention to the policy of the Ministry in regard to refusal to sanction superannuation of old workers by Local Government authorities. I have a case which has already been notified to the Minister where a man was employed by the Pembroke Council since 1883, and worked as a skilled worker for 40 years. He was certified last year by the medical officer as unfit for further service owing to heart trouble. The council granted him a pension of £2 8s. 4d. per week, but the Department refused sanction of this pension and consequently the payment was stopped.
If this man had withdrawn ten years ago and had sent in his claim, he would have had it sanctioned by the British Local Government Board and he would have been drawing his pension, as others in such a position are to-day drawing their pensions which were granted and sanctioned by the British Local Government Board. The explanation given now by the Ministry for refusing saction in this case, and I believe in numerous other cases of a similar kind—the explanation given for their change of policy from the policy adopted by the Local Government Board under the British regime— is that it has been found, according to one legal authority, that is to say the Attorney-General, that the right of the local authority to grant pensions does not extend to workmen or to people working for a weekly wage, but is confined to those who are in the nature of permanent officials receiving a salary. It is suggested that whatever was done under the old regime, with the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant, was done without authority. We are now in the position that the new Local Government regime is declaring that all the previous pensions granted under the same Act were beyond the authority of the Board and are in fact illegal, and that the new Local Government authority is administering this law, or at least is interpreting the law in this much more rigid sense than the old Local Government authority did. We find the result is that men who stayed on in troubled times and filled in further years of service when they might have retired five, seven, or ten years ago, are now being deprived of pensions because of that attention to their work over these years. I recognise the difficulty that the Minister himself may be in after having received a notification from the Attorney-General as to his reading of the law, but I wonder what preceded the approach to the Attorney-General?
I wonder why it was found necessary in such a case to seek the judgment of the Attorney-General on such a matter? Presumably because of a desire to be very rigid, or shall I say, very just, or very legal rather than just, in the administration of the existing law wherever it attempts to assist the poor. Here we have a case, and I quote it as one of many where, because of a new interpretation of the law which has not yet been decided in the courts, local authorities are deprived of their rights and of their desire to pension old employees under the law which has been operating for many years, and they are thwarted by the judgment of the Ministry of Local Government. As I say, that is not in response to any decision of the courts, but in response, shall I say, to Counsel's opinion which, presumably, was sought in the hope that they would get an adverse opinion. That, perhaps, is unkind, but one cannot but feel unkind when one gets piles and piles of complaints about the way in which the Ministry is interpreting its duties. This is a very important matter for many people. Possibly it will place the position of many enjoying pensions in jeopardy if this interpretation of the law can be sustained, and if any members of some of the ratepayers' unions, if I may call them that for the moment, without fear of exciting their antipathy, should try to save the rates by going to the courts and objecting to the payment of further pensions on the grounds that they are illegal. I can imagine that happening without any great stretch of the imagination, and I am raising the matter in the hope that the Minister will see his way to explain it more satisfactorily to the Dáil than he has done by letter, and to urge the necessity for bringing in legislation to legalise all that has been done and to make legal the powers that have been exercised in the past by local authorities to pay pensions to their old and faithful employees.
I desire briefly to draw the attention of the Minister to the refusal of his Department to sanction pensions to relieving officers who have become redundant as a result of the scheme of Union amalgamation that has been carried out in many parts of the country. I had occasion to make representations to his Department regarding the delay in the case of two men who were voted pensions in one particular area. One case was settled up, to the satisfaction of the individual concerned, and in the other the Department has refused sanction on the grounds that the individual concerned, although he had forty-three years' service in that particular position, was not regarded as a full-time officer. I would like the Minister to make it clear what is his definition, or the definition of his Department, of a full-time officer. Here is a case of two individuals serving in a particular area and doing the same class of work for a number of years. I want to know why one is regarded as a full-time officer and gets his pension, and the other is not, though both have been doing the same class of work. I want to know why one man got his pension and why the other was refused it, and what I am really anxious to get is a definition of what constitutes a full-time officer.
Mr. BURKE
I do not know what procedure we are adopting now. Are we to discuss the general question, or are we to take each estimate separately? I do not know exactly under what headings these questions are coming up. Last year I think it was Deputy Johnson who suggested that we should have the general discussion first, and then take the estimates one by one afterwards. Then Deputy Fitzgibbon suggested that it would be better take the estimates one by one and have a general discussion afterwards in order to avoid overlapping. I do not know what procedure we are following out now, whether I am to keep the general question or whether Deputies can get up and make as many speeches as they like without being confined to any particular estimate.
We adopted both procedures last year. In one case we took the general discussion first and went through the sub-heads afterwards, and in other cases we took the sub-heads first and then had the general discussion. The second procedure is one which involves overlapping and that is why I suggested that we should take the general question first and then go through the sub-heads.
The difficulty one has is to know what is the general question.
I was evolving a definition of that during the discussion. The general question is a question I think which does not seem to arise properly under the sub-heads and which therefore, I take it, arises under sub-head (a). Deputy Johnson's point does arise under the second sub-head—"Salaries of Officers of Lunatic Asylums." That is a specific case. Deputy Sears raised a question about sending inspectors to the west for the relief of distress; that appears to come in under sub-head (a). Old age pensions do not appear to have any sub-head, and therefore that subject comes in under the general question sub-head (a). Superannuation does not appear to have any sub-head and therefore it also comes in under sub-head (a). The discussion so far has been by a process of exclusion of what might be called general questions. It would be reasonable for the Minister to ask that all points should first be made before he replies.
Mr. BURKE
That would be much easier than to be answering each question as it is put.
Do I take it that the Minister is going to conclude on the general question now?
No; we have all these points to come to. Anything which does not arise under these sub-heads should be raised before we come to the sub-heads.
I would like to get some information in connection with the distribution of the money given for reconstruction. I would like to know what were the reasons that prompted the Ministry in defining the wages which should be paid in rural areas and in urban areas. I asked a similar question of the Minister sometime ago and I did not get a very definite answer. Would I be right in assuming that the reason a higher rate was given in a town as against a rural district was because of the higher cost of living in the town? If I am right in that assumption, am I to take it that every worker living in a town, whether he was employed in the urban district or outside it in connection with this grant, would be entitled to the 35/- because of the fact that he was living in the town and had to bear the high cost of living there?
A few days before the election in Limerick I noticed in a paper that the Ministry had decided to grant an increase of 2/- a week in the wages of the workers in Limerick. The result of that was that I heard workers in Tipperary wishing that some Deputy would resign there so that they could get an extra 2/- a week. This wage has been spoken of as a 29/- a week wage but it has been put up to the Ministry that it is really only a nett wage of 27/11. The Ministry has been asked by several county councils to sanction an increase of this 29/- a week. Several county councils have passed resolutions in connection with the increasing of this wage, but the Ministry have refused to sanction any increase. I would like to know why the Minister agreed to give an increase of 2/- a week in Limerick County and refused it in other places, such as Cork or other counties. They are able to get a good deal perhaps, there. I have been requested to bring up this matter in reference to the wage of 29/- a week —especially in regard to the increase given in Limerick. Was that increase given, as has been suggested, because of the Election?
MR. JOHNSON
On the subject of salaries, there are on page 129 three items one of which refers to trade inspectors. I am not able to understand what particular trade inspectors are referred to. Therefore I am not quite sure whether the point that I want to raise is due to come under this sub-head. Are these trade inspectors in any way connected with the Contracts Department or have they anything to do with it?
Yes, they belong to the Contracts Department.
There is a reference to a legal adviser at a salary of £700, and a legal assistant at £400, and there was nothing last year. I notice by the notes that in 1923-24 the duties of the position were discharged by a member of the audit staff, a B.L., and his salary was provided for under sub-head "C." In respect of the second position, the duties of this were discharged by a Lower Executive Officer, a B.L., and his salary was paid from the amount provided for the Lower Executive Class. Perhaps on this sub-head the Minister will explain why the economic arrangement of last year has been departed from. Coming back to trade inspectors, I want to draw attention to a matter which obviously comes within the purview of these officers, and that is the giving away of contracts, as has recently been done for brushes. There was a tender invited for so many thousand shaving brushes. A sample shaving brush was submitted to local Irish makers and the contract was not accepted. Presumably the price was too high. It appears there has been a purchase of 15,000 shaving brushes at a price considerably lower than the price quoted by the Irish manufacturers. And as it turns out, the quality was very much lower than that which was quoted for and of which a sample was presented to the Irish manufacturers. That requires some explanation. It has been said, as a matter of fact, that the price paid was only about half of what the Irish manufacturers quoted. They claim that the quality was much less than half as good as the quality they were able to make, for which they quoted and for which the specification provided. It is further suggested that the actual article which was purchased at possibly half the price of the Irish quotation could have been bought and was offered to Irish manufacturers in trading circles at less than half of what was actually paid. Now, the position with regard to Irish manufactured brushes is very serious. The trade here has been established for a very long time. It is a trade which is conducted by skilled people, in the main, and by virtue of the kind of competition that is coming in from Belgium and from other countries, the trade is practically three quarters idle.
It is nearly extinct and it will be extinct if the Government follows the present policy of giving out its contracts to cheap makes of imported goods from other countries, probably long-distance countires. It is possible that the 15,000 shaving brushes contracted for by the Irish Government were made either in Germany or in Japan. Now, there is a serious aspect to this. It is—what tests have been applied by the Trade Department to make sure that these shaving brushes are free from contamination? It has been a not infrequent complaint that anthrax has been carried through shaving brushes to people and very much suffering and very much pain caused thereby. Quite recently in Aldershot a case of anthrax was found. A soldier through using cheap, imported shaving brushes was infected and there was a general seizure in the town of Aldershot by the British Authorities on account of that. I want to know whether any assurances can be given to the Dáil that these 15,000 shaving brushes which have been bought cheaply have been guaranteed free from infection? What tests have been applied? Where have they come from? Has any close inspection been made of the source of these brushes, whether they came from Japan, the Far East, Australia or Germany or where they have come from and what guarantees have the Trade Department that these brushes are free from infection? This is a matter, of course, that is of very great importance to the people in the trade but it is of much greater importance to the public. Unless the Department responsible is going to impose stringent tests upon the quality and freedom from infection of articles of this kind, then cheapness will be found a very mistaken policy. It will be found to be very dear, because it will impose very great cost upon the sufferers if such a thing as anthrax is introduced. This is not an alarmist note. As a matter of fact, it has been found necessary to deal very stringently with this question of anthrax carried to people through using brushes. I think we are entitled to ask what inspections were made in regard to the quality of these brushes and their freedom from infection, and what guarantees have been secured by the Trade Department before they gave a contract away for brushes to be imported that they were made under fair conditions and are not liable to create disease amongst the users? I will leave it at that.
I move to report progress.
Agreed.