With regard to item 3, the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883, I would like if the Minister would kindly give us some information as to the purpose of that Act. The description of it seems rather ambiguous. It reads: "To enable the sanitary authorities to carry out improvement schemes for providing houses for agricultural labourers." That does not convey much to the average Deputy, and it should be worth while to have some information upon it. With regard to the Motor Car Act, I think that if the Minister's description of some of the sections be correct the House should not pass it. I would have a conscientious objection to voting for a Bill that proposes to punish a man who refuses to give a false name and address. I cannot believe that such an Act ever went through the British Parliament, bad and all as they may be over there. I cannot believe that the Bill is quite as bad as the Minister represents it. With regard to some of the other provisions, it looks rather curious to be passing a Bill here to continue the speed limit when the Minister for Justice has issued instructions that the speed limit is not to be observed.
Public Business. - Expiring Laws Bill, 1929—Committee Stage.
When?
Some months ago. The Minister has admitted it in this House. I wonder was the Minister for Local Government and Public Health a party to that or was he consulted about it?
He extended the speed limit.
No. The speed limit was suspended. There are some other provisions in this Bill, too, that are rather foolish to enact. For instance, a person under 17 years of age is disqualified from obtaining a licence for driving a motor car. The Minister must be pretty well aware that a good proportion of the motor cars in the country are driven by youths under 17, yet here we are going through the formality of enacting that licences be not issued to persons under 17, while every day in the week we know that such licences are issued. There is another foolish provision in the Act, too, and that is that a police constable is, under one of the sections, empowered to demand the production of a driving licence. It is quite unreasonable to expect people to have their driving licences with them always, and such a law is only an irritant. A great many foolish prosecutions have taken place as regards that provision. When the Act is being revised, as I understand is to be done soon, I do not think that provision should be left in. I suggest to the Minister also, with regard to the forthcoming Bill, that the rules governing the use of trade licences are unsatisfactory inasmuch as they are extremely vague. The law, both in Great Britain and in this country, causes great discontent amongst those concerned: in fact, they cannot find out what the law is at all. There have been several decisions given in the English courts on the question, but there has never been any finality reached. I think the Minister would be well advised to look into that matter before he brings forward the new Bill to deal with all these questions of licences and registration of motor cars.
There is a further matter to which I want to call attention in connection with this Bill. Item 11, dealing with Harbours, Docks and Piers (Temporary Increase of Charges) Act, enables the Minister for Transport to authorise so and so. I thought we had discovered during the past few weeks that "The Minister for Transport" is a useless term in this country. Does not that totally invalidate the Act? I thought it had been found that nobody was named in the Adaptation of Enactments Act to take the place of the Minister for Transport, and that, consequently, we have an Act the provisions of which cannot be applied. We shall be glad to have the Minister's explanation. With regard to item 12, I would be glad if the Minister would make a statement about it. It deals with an Act enabling land to be acquired compulsorily by the State for the local authorities. Does that only apply in connection with relief grants?
I have already made a complaint as to the working of the Combined Purchasing Act, and I hope the Minister will be able to deal with it. I can assure him that the matter I mentioned is causing great dissatisfaction all over the country. The shopkeepers are complaining that a great deal of trade to which they are entitled is being lost to them through the officers of local authorities purchasing certain requirements for their private purposes through the Combined Purchasing Department. They feel that the Act, even at its best and worked in an entirely proper way, is not equitable to them, inasmuch as it deprives them of an opportunity of contracting for the sale of goods which ordinarily should be their right. But as it is worked in many places they feel it is worked even more to their detriment than was intended. I think that the Minister should be prepared to give us a guarantee that these abuses will cease.
I brought up some cases with regard to the Combined Purchasing Department here on a previous occasion. At that time the Minister for Finance told me that it was better that that matter should be dealt with on the Committee Stage. I also asked the Minister for Local Government if he got a list of the complaints received from the South Cork Board of Assistance during the past 12 months with regard to goods not being up to quality. The Trade Department seems to be more or less a dead letter as far as the Central or Combined Purchasing Committee is concerned. It is bad enough to have all those contracts up here in Dublin while the rates are being paid by the people in Cork, but it is far worse when you have shoddy supplied by those contractors. In nine cases out of ten the material supplied is not up to sample.
I have a few specific cases here in proof of my contention. On 24th September, 1929, the South Cork Board of Assistance got this from the Trade Department when they complained that the goods supplied were not up to the specification:—"Sample is not considered up to specification; acceptance is, however, recommended." Though the sample was not up to specification the Trade Department recommended its acceptance anyway. I have a whole list of those cases here and in every one of them, or in practically every one of them, the Trade Department recommended the acceptance of the goods though the material was not up to the standard. Those contractors forward samples. They have to enter into competition with other contractors to be put on the trade list. The next thing that happens is that the contractor supplies inferior quality goods, and the contractor who supplies decent goods at fair prices is cut out in favour of the contractor who supplies the shoddy. It is absolutely useless, the storekeeper reports, sending samples to the Trades Department. The samples are kept there for six or seven months before any reply is sent. This is one example of it: "1,003 yards of grey shirting received November 28th, 1927; sample sent November 29th, 1927. No report received and second sample sent June 1st, 1928, seven months afterwards: goods taken into stock on the 12th June," without any report having been received whether the goods are up to specification or not. This is another case: "Seven pieces of union satin ticken received 18th November, 1927. Sample sent 26th November, 1927. No report received. Second sample sent 1st June, 1928. No report yet received (that was 25th July, 1928), and the goods still held up." How the Minister expects any institution could carry on with that condition of affairs prevailing I cannot understand. If, in connection with goods contracted for in November, we cannot have a statement from the Trades Department as to whether or not they are up to specification up to the following July, then it would be better for the Minister for Local Government to scrap the Trades Department altogether and not be putting the burden on the shoulders of the taxpayers, as it has proved to be both worthless and useless, as shown by these reports. That is a condition of affairs which the Minister should look into and put an end to. The official responsible for that state of affairs should be got rid of—I do not care who he is. All these reports for the fortnightly meetings are in the same strain. On practically every occasion the material received was not up to the standard. If we are going to have contractors taking contracts and supplying goods of an inferior quality, and at the last moment we have a recommendation from the Trades Department that we had better accept the goods, then it is time that we should know where we are.
This is another report:—
"During the half-year ended 30th September, 1928, Walpole Brothers made five deliveries of grey calico, totalling nearly 2,500 yards. The whole on test was inferior stuff, and was rejected. On October 25th we received another consignment unidentifiable by any marks until the invoice came later. It seems useless to make a fifth test of their goods. Please instruct. Order:— Sample to be forwarded to Trade Department for report."
The Storekeeper also reported:—
"The 8 pieces white twill sheeting twice rejected by the Board, and later, through the advocacy of Mr. Meagher, Trades Department, ordered to be accepted, have now been received. We have examined them and find that they are now not single pieces, but fragments. It emerged from Mr. Meagher's arguments in favour of the acceptance of these goods that when the delivery was returned from here the contractors sent samples for test to Belfast; that as a result of this test they communicated with the Trades Department, and that the latter sent an inspector to take further samples. Between the jigs and the reels there must have been a good deal of material taken off for testing purposes. The contractors, however, in their letter to me returning these goods, say they returned them at the original lengths. That is to say, we are expected to pay for all the sampling (Belfast and Dublin) which has taken place, as well as for the sample we sent forward ourselves. I suggest now that the stocktaker who is at present in the House be asked to measure these goods, that his figures be taken, and that only for these and for the half yard sent for sample by us should we pay. Order:— Adopted."
When the officials of the Trades Department come down and urge the acceptance of goods which are not up to standard, it shows exactly where the shoe is pinching. One of the arguments used for the combined purchasing scheme was that it did away with any favouritism towards local contractors. But if the favouritism, or what some people would call corrupt practices, is going to be transferred from the local body in Cork to the Trades Department in Dublin, I would sooner see the local body getting anything that is going. I am afraid that is what it amounts to. The Trades Department have proved to be absolutely inefficient. When a sample is sent to them and they can give no report for ten months, it is time that the Minister who is responsible should either scrap the Department altogether or get rid of the officials responsible for that state of affairs.
In reply to Deputy Moore's question with regard to the Labourers Act, 1883, Deputies know that local bodies can buy land and build labourers' cottages on it. The Act of 1883, although a temporary Act, is the foundation of their power to do so, and the yearly continuance of that Act continues these fundamental powers and continues all the amending Acts to that particular Act. So that, except we continue the Labourers Act of 1883 in the Expiring Laws Bill every year, we do away with the whole foundation upon which labourers' cottages can be built in rural areas. The question might naturally arise as to why, if the Act itself is a satisfactory one, it is not made permanent. We got it over here in 1922 after nineteen years of impermanence and I am not aware that there is any very serious difficulty either in getting the work done or in the administration by reason of the fact that it is not a permanent Act. No doubt in time, if it is necessary, the Act will be replaced by a permanent Act, but I do not think that any point arises as to why we should not continue the Act under this Bill.
The Motor Car Act of 1903 is in practically the same position. I hope before we rise for the Recess to introduce a Traffic Bill that will dispose of the necessity for having this Act appearing in the Expiring Laws Bill next year. When that Bill is before the House, all the points raised by Deputy Moore and others from time to time can be raised, but if there is any particular point in the administration of the traffic law as it exists at present that requires to be discussed, I think in all fairness it would be more satisfactory to discuss it on a motion, or to raise it in some other way. To attempt to discuss small points in traffic administration without adequate notice is very difficult, and, I suggest, on the eve of the introduction of a Bill which will codify and put into a satisfactory condition our traffic law based on modern conditions and on the consideration that has been given to the matter by the Traffic Committee, would not be very profitable.
The Deputy also referred to the Unemployment (Relief Works) Act, 1920, and asked what was the idea of continuing it. I do not know that it is particularly required, but except there is some case made for dropping the Act and doing away with the powers that local bodies have under it, I do not see any reason for dropping it at present. It gives local bodies limited powers to acquire land for the construction of houses and for the building of roads by relief schemes.
My question was whether this is a power that could ordinarily be exercised only in connection with relief grants.
That was an Act to provide for the spending of State moneys provided definitely for relief works in which power was given to local authorities specially in connection with that Act. It enabled them to acquire land in an easier and a quicker way than it would have been possible to acquire it under the ordinary law, which involves perhaps rather elaborate inquiries; that is the only advantage in it. At present there is no money provided by the State for this particular purpose, and there was no intention to provide any.
The point raised on the Harbours Tribunal is one that the Deputy will probably find out in connection with recent legislation bearing upon the Minister for Transport. The Adaptation of Enactments Act provided that the Minister for Industry and Commerce should take the place of the Minister for Transport in respect of certain Statutes, but I think the difficulty before the House recently was upon an agreement which had been entered into between two parties, and that in that agreement, which was not a Statute, the Minister for Transport was mentioned. It was felt by the private parties who wanted to solve the matter that a Statute was necessary for them. But it did not appear correct at any rate that we could stretch the Adaptation of Enactments Act which applied to the Minister for Transport in Statutes to the agreement as between more or less private persons.
The combined purchasing position, as far as I can understand Deputy Moore's point, is that local traders take exception to employees of local bodies buying goods from firms which appear on the Combined Purchasing List.
Under contract.
I have no details of any abuse before me in connection with that matter. I think the Deputy complained on previous occasions, but as I say I have no details before me and I think it would be very difficult to provide machinery by which a person, because he was an employee of a local body, should be prevented buying wherever he wanted to buy. I do admit that there are dangers in the way where employees of local bodies can get favours from persons that are supplying goods to the local bodies but I think that that danger would be quite as existent if goods were supplied by the local traders as by a contractor. We can hardly impose upon a contractor that if he comes on the Combined Purchasing List he shall not engage in any private business with other persons. I think that, except instances could be brought to our notice that assured us very definitely that there was abuse in it, it would be very difficult for either the Minister or the members of the local body who control that staff to interfere. The firms that get upon the Combined Purchasing List are firms that get there by competitive tenders, their tenders being submitted to a special committee representative of the different classes of the local bodies that go into these tenders and make recommendations to the Minister for Local Government as to who shall be put upon the list. In so far as the question of getting on the list arises it will be impossible for an employee of a local body to influence the getting on the list any particular contractor. The only danger there is, that the local contractor who is giving favours to employees of the local board might be tempted to send inferior articles to that institution; but in that case he has to run the gauntlet of the inspector of the Combined Purchasing Department who inspects the stores of the different institutions from time to time, takes samples of the goods, and has them tested and examined. So I do not know there is very great danger and I have never had evidence before me that there has been an abuse of the smallest kind. If there is very great likelihood of danger I would like to have it pointed out. If there has been any volume of abuse I would like to have details, but in the absence of one or the other I do not see that I am called upon to do anything.
Deputy Corry's resurrected allegations as to delays in dealing with samples, have already been disposed of. Deputy Corry has suggested that material was sent up in a particular month, say November, and that nothing was heard about it until June, and then that additional samples had to be sent up again in June. Deputy Corry is a member of this House and he is also a member of the Board for which he speaks. It is astounding that from the month of November until June he should be silent on a matter like that with the whole Question Paper in front of him from day to day. He resurrects allegations that as far as I know have been completely disposed of in correspondence with the South Cork Board of Health by absolute and specific reference to specific dates. I would suggest to Deputy Corry that he should look at the correspondence of the South Cork Board of Health on the matter and if he still feels that we have something on our conscience I would like him to examine his own conscience as to why he has been silent all this time. The combined purchasing system has from time to time been condemned generally and its administration has been condemned, but in spite of the fact that the purchases under the combined purchasing system probably exceed £700,000 a year—in spite of that, and of the large number of institutions that deal with combined purchasing I do not think that I have had a single question put up to me during the last twelve months arising out of any case of dissatisfaction or friction as between the local bodies and the Department here. I am speaking now from recollection, but I doubt if that is so. The South Cork Board of Health during the year ending 31st March, 1929, purchased £9,066 worth of goods. I do not think that I have been asked a single question about any difficulty in connection with that matter. There have been difficulties, but they have not been brought up here. They might have been brought up any day that the Dáil was sitting except Friday.
Does the Minister mean that every difference of opinion between his Department and a local body should be made the subject of question and answer here? If he does, I will guarantee that I will have at least fourteen questions every day. I do not want to be occupying the time of the Dáil uselessly and I have long ago given up hope of getting a reasonable answer from the Minister's Department, and the South Cork Board of Assistance have also given up hope long ago of getting fair play from the Department. Statements were made that a period of eight months had been allowed to elapse from the time the material was sent up until a reply was received. The Minister asked me some time ago about my conscience and I ask him now about his.
I invite the Deputy in the months that lie before us to raise questions in regard to any difficulties which the South Cork Board come up against as regards unsatisfactory administration by the Department of the Combined Purchasing Act. We can deal with each specific case on its merits when it comes up, discuss the details, and get away from the generalities which we get here when we deal with the Expiring Laws Bill.
I gave the Minister fourteen days' notice. I said that I would like if on the Committee Stage the Minister would give a list of all the complaints that had been received from the South Cork Board of Assistance during the past twelve months with regard to goods not being up to standard quality. I stated further that if he saw the lot of them it would open his eyes as to the way administration is being carried out.
What were the goods?
If you were here you would know. After fourteen days' notice the Minister need not talk about generalities. I will give him the details. There are no less than thirty-seven cases here in this list.
It is discussing the matter in its broadest generalities to invite the Minister to consider all cases that have been the subject of correspondence between the Cork Board of Health and the Department within the last twelve months. During the last twelve months there have been twenty-one samples received from the Cork Board of Health, and of these the Department were only able to recommend that four be rejected. The regulations that govern the working of the Combined Purchasing Act are printed in English and Irish and have often been referred to here. I would refer the Deputy again to Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8, which make it perfectly clear to either an English or Irish speaking body that if they get materials which are not up to standard they can go and get the stuff elsewhere, and can tell the contractor to come and take his stuff, or they can accept the stuff and pay a reduced price for it.
The prices of samples are taken annually by the inspectors of the Combined Purchasing Department, and where doubt exists, or where it is clear to the inspectors and advisors of the Department that stuff has been accepted that is not up to the standard, bodies are informed as to what reduction should be made in the prices that they are going to pay. I have a list before me in which dozens of samples have been taken. The local bodies were instructed not to pay more than a certain price, being a reduction of so much per cent., or a reduction of so many shillings and so many pence in respect of a particular article or particular type of goods.
I want to get clear——
The Deputy can get clear when the Minister is finished.
The Minister is giving way——
The Deputy can get clear when the Minister has finished his statement.
As I was saying, out of 21 samples of textiles, four were recommended for rejection by the Department. I do not know whether in any of these cases a cut in price was recommended. So far as I know there was no cut in price recommended. I know that there have been occasions on which the Cork Board have been persuaded that the action of the Department was right in recommending acceptance. Every member of that body except the Deputy was persuaded. If the Deputy comes up against a case like that he can do so either by question or by letter to me. The merits of the case can then be gone into. The combined purchasing system which, on the purchase of road materials, bitumen and tar, saved £15,000 last year, is too valuable a weapon in the hands of the local authorities to have either its value obscured or the prestige of its machinery damaged by general complaints that create an atmosphere of discontent and suspicion, complaints such as Deputy Corry makes, and which, in his own words, amount to charges of corrupt practices against the Department. If the Deputy is sincere in making the best possible purchases for local bodies or for using the machinery available, he will take his sticks one by one, help to break them, and assist me to do the same.
The Minister said that of 21 samples, 4 were rejected. If he could give the number of samples not up to standard we could get more satisfactory conclusions. The report I read a few minutes ago states that eight pieces of white twill sheeting were twice rejected by the Board, but later, through the advocacy of an official of the Department, were ordered to be accepted. That will show the length to which the Department will go. Here was material which the Board reported was not up to sample and which was rejected on two occasions by them, but an official was sent down from the Department, and he urged the Board to accept it, even though he admitted that the material was not up to sample.
What is the objection to raising that question at the time it happens and having it fully gone into?
The objection is that I, as a member of that local body, have my duties down there in Cork on that local body to carry out. I do not believe in bringing these duties up here every day in the week. If I did, I promise you that I would keep the Minister going. If I had to bring up every complaint as to the administration of his Department I would keep him going every Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, and keep him going every night in addition, on the motion for the adjournment. The case I make against his Department is that we advertise for goods when we want them. Two or three thousand yards of stuff arrived down there, and it was six or seven months before a report was received from his Department stating whether the goods were up to sample or not. In the meantime, the goods were required, and they had to be taken into stock whether they were up to sample or not. The goods had to be accepted because of the laziness, or something else, in his Department which did not allow of the stuff being tested or of a report being sent down. There is something wrong with his Department when that is allowed to occur.
I think Deputy Corry has made one point which the Minister has not attempted to answer, and it might be well to give attention to it. With regard to the delay, Deputy Corry has given a specific instance showing that there was at least one case of a sample being sent up from the South Cork Board of Health to the Central Purchasing Department. They were not tested for six months, and the Board got no reply as to the reliability of that sample, as to whether that sample was up to standard or not. Is it a fact there was such delay?
I doubt it very much. I stated very definitely in reply to the general remarks of Deputy Corry that he was resurrecting allegations of delay which had been completely disposed of in correspondence from my Department to the South Cork Board of Health on this specific point. I invite the Deputy to refer to the correspondence between the Department and the Board of Health. If he has any reason then for thinking that the correspondence does not cover the case that he is bringing up, let him bring up that case to me.
These are the minutes, and they arrived in your Department. That statement should be enough.
The Minister knows as well as I or anybody who has any knowledge of the official concerned, that that man is a particularly valuable public servant, and a very efficient official. I refer to the storekeeper of the South Cork Board of Health. If he made a statement of that kind in his report to the Board, I would accept his statement over that of any official I know of. There is no official of the Minister's Department or any Department whose word I would be more ready to accept. If there is a statement in a report made by that officer of the nature to which Deputy Corry referred, I think there must be something in it, and it deserves to be inquired into. Further, I would say, despite the Minister's lecture to Deputy Corry, that he was quite right in bringing up a matter here, now or at any time a year hence, if he thinks he has a case to bring up. He is quite within his right when an opportunity of this kind occurs, and when the Department is under discussion, in bringing up a case and in having a matter of this kind ventilated.
My anxiety is to improve the method of doing things on the part of some members on the other side of the House. I am suggesting that it is simply running away from doing the thing at the right moment, and running away from giving a chance to those concerned of looking at the facts as they are, to leave a matter over from November, 1928 to June, 1929, in the first instance, as Deputy Corry admits he has done, and to leave it further over from June, 1929, until November, 1929, in the second instance, before attempting to look at facts straight in the face. I do not accept Deputy O'Kelly's personal estimate of the different people who inhabit the country. I am prepared to examine cases that are put before me and to examine them in every detail.
The Minister has stated—I am not speaking now about the Cork instance, but on a matter of policy—that numerous cases have occurred to his own knowledge where goods have not been up to sample, textile goods.
A Deputy
And others.
He also stated that there are many cases where officials of the Department have recommended the acceptance of the goods at reduced prices. Does the Minister approve of that practice? Is it not a very dangerous practice to follow up? If that is a matter of policy, that is in itself a wrong policy to be adopted by the Department. I have experience of public bodies for many years and it has always been my experience, where the contractors were local traders and where goods were not up to sample, that the goods were either sent back or they were purchased elsewhere at the contractor's expense, but there was never a case in which a compromise was come to. That practice of compromising on the question of samples is a most dangerous one, whether in the case of goods supplied by local contractors or those supplied under the combined purchasing system. I suppose this law will be extended for another period, but I would strongly recommend to the Minister that the practice which he says has been going on under his Department, of allowing a compromise on goods obviously not up to standard, should cease and that he should instruct his officials in future where contractors are not fulfilling the terms of their contract that the goods should be returned and that the Board should purchase other goods at the contractor's expense.
I quite support the attitude which Deputy O'Hanlon takes up in connection with this particular matter. To a very large extent we are endeavouring to encourage local authorities to act strictly along the lines of Sections 5 and 6 according to which they will not accept goods that are not up to standard. This, however, has to be borne in mind at times in connection with this matter. One of the things that the Combined Purchasing Department set out to do was to encourage Irish manufacture. In many cases we get textiles and woollens of Irish manufacture from Irish firms, and when you come across cases where there is a slight difference between the sample and the standard of the stuff that is sent in to the local authority by a manufacturer there was a margin of discretion, which in the initial stages of putting this Act into operation and in the initial stages when Irish manufacturers were getting on their feet, was allowed.
To encourage inefficiency.
I would, however, say that where discrimination is exercised in nine cases out of ten discrimination is exercised in respect of the locally purchased article rather than the article purchased from a manufacturer. In nearly every article I have mentioned in the sheets before me, where the acceptance at a slight reduction is made, it is in the case where a local authority has purchased locally instead of going to the contractor, but as I say, generally speaking, I support Deputy O'Hanlon's attitude in the matter, and more and more the Department is working towards that end. We are entering into arrangements with contractors to organise purchasing by local authorities in the way that will be best for the local body, and best for the contractors themselves, and we do expect that the contractors will live up to their samples. We are doing our best to see that they do it. There are occasions in which discretion may be dictated by the circumstances. But these cases must become more and more limited, I feel.
The Minister has mentioned that in some cases where discretion has been used, it has been given for the purpose of encouraging Irish manufacture. That on its face value looks a rather laudable thing to do, but on the other hand, does the Minister imagine that by allowing Irish manufacturers to produce articles which are not up to sample that he is doing something for the purpose of encouraging Irish manufacture? On the contrary, is he not getting Irish manufacturers into a very bad groove by letting them manufacture materials not up to sample and allowing them to get away with it? That is not encouraging Irish manufacture. It is not making the Irish manufacturers honest traders. As long as there is a possibility of his Department allowing the acceptance of goods not up to sample, whether they are Irish or not, the manufacturer will always try and get away with it. He made no distinction between local traders tendering and manufacturers in this question of discrimination, and I was pleased to hear from the Minister that he takes my view. I think he may go the whole hog, and in future say where goods are supplied, they must either be up to sample or will be rejected by his Department and the local body.
Deputy Corry has just now handed me a copy of a report which he has received, I take it, as a member of the South Cork Board of Health. This paragraph appears in it:—
"It is not unusual for the Trade Department to delay the test reports on clothing materials sent from here (we are unable to separate responsibility as between tester and department, as we deal only with the latter).
"As, for example:—
"(1) 1,003 yards grey shirting received November 28th, 1927; sample sent November 29th, 1927; no report received, and second sample sent June 1st, 1928. Goods taken into stock 12th June, 1928."
This is a case two years ago.
If it were five years, it would be the same.
Apparently.
"(2) Seven pieces union satin ticken received 18th November, 1927; sample sent 26th November, 1927; no report received. Second sample sent 1st June, 1928; no report yet received and goods still held up."
I do not know whether that is common with the department. I think it is not common. I would say if it were we would have heard a good deal about it. Here is a case, and it has been put to the Minister two or three times, and it is brushed aside, and Deputy Corry, he says in his usual lecturing way, ought to have brought it here before. He may try the schoolmaster elsewhere; it will not go down here. Deputy Corry is right in bringing that, no matter when it happened, before this House and asking for the courtesy of an explanation. To be treated in a schoolmasterly fashion is not good enough. Either this fact is correct or it is not. Personally speaking, I am all for this combined purchasing department, and my anxiety in helping Deputy Corry or anybody else to investigate a case of this kind is to see that these things will not happen. It is not good enough if these facts are as set out here.
If!
That is what I say. "if," and the Minister has been asked on two separate times by Deputy Corry and me if that was correct and he did not answer. Therefore, I infer silence means that it is correct. It is correct, but if it is correct it ought not to happen, and it is with a view to asking the Minister to tighten matters of that kind up and to increase efficiency and confidence in that Department that I would ask him to investigate that matter. Can he tell us whether that statement is correct or not?
I am afraid I will have to give up schoolmastering, the schoolmastering of people who take themselves so seriously as to rise, at twenty minutes to five on the 28th November, 1929, and to ask, I suppose, each of two persons three times within the last twenty-five minutes what about what happened on such-a-date in November, 1927, as if nothing happened after it until June, 1928. Here, I understood, as a matter of fact, that Deputy Corry was raising the matter about seven months after the June he mentioned, but I see that it is about nineteen months. I will give up schoolmastering and will be prepared to deal with cases of complaints which are put up to me.
I would, however, ask Deputy Corry, who takes such an interest in this matter, to do what I suggest Deputy Corry would do if he is interested in this November, 1927 matter, to see the correspondence that possibly followed the raising of this matter with the Department.
Will the Minister answer whether the statement is correct or not?
I have a case here on the 14/8/'29, which shows that the same game is still being continued by his Department. This is the case. If the Minister thinks he has got rid of the official concerned, he has not got rid of him yet.
"This complaint of Messrs. Usher & Co. is a legitimate one. Payment is held up because only a part delivery of the goods has been approved and taken into stock. One delivery each of Grey Drugget and Bengal Stripe still awaits decision under test. One sample of these materials was sent on March 7th. Another was asked for and sent on May 1st. No decision has yet been received from the Trade Department."
No decision was yet arrived at on the 14/8/'29. The Minister seems to be insulted because we suggest that there should be any suspicion attached to his Department, but that raises the suspicion in regard to the Department and a very legitimate one, the suspicion that the reason why the report was not sent down on these tests was in order that our local body would be compelled through necessity to take in those articles without having to report at all. That is the whole bottom of it. We advertise for every article when we want it and we are eight months before we can take it into stock because apparently the contractor has pull or influence enough with the Department to prevent a report being sent down for five or six months. When he accuses local bodies of corrupt practices, I tell him to clean his own house.
With regard to the Local Suppliers' Advisory Committee that is set up under the Act, I would like the Minister to say whether it is changed from time to time or has it been the same from the time of its inception. Can we have the names of that committee? Further, with regard to the reply which he gave yesterday that fish was not one of the commodities dealt with under the Combined Purchasing Act, I would like to know if that is final or is there any chance of its being considered? It would appear that there is a great opportunity under the machinery of the Combined Purchasing Act for helping the fishermen. Nobody will deny, I think, that they require help. It is quite clear, of course, that the difficulty of a regular supply is there. Everyone admits that. But, at least there is room for a partial success in the matter. There are certain fishing ports where if there was a contract offered the men would be more than glad to see that the contract was fulfilled. Everybody knows that the fisheries are dying very fast and that very extreme measures will have to be taken to save them. This is not the occasion, I suppose, to go into it fully, but at least I would like to know from the Minister whether there is any chance of this matter being reconsidered.
With regard to the point I raised a while ago, I am afraid the Minister entirely misunderstood me. The point was simply this, that supplies were needed for an institution. They are contracted for under the Combined Purchasing Act. The secretary, say, of that institution wants similar goods for his own household and he uses the privilege of the contract to get his private supplies. The Minister may think that is purely imaginary, but his own Department, to my own knowledge, confessed that such abuses have occurred and apologised for them. Though I have heard of no definite cases for the past year, I can tell him that no week passes without my getting complaints that that sort of thing is going on. I, like Deputy Sean T. O'Kelly, am entirely in favour of the principle of combined purchasing, but it would do a lot to popularise it if the shopkeepers could be free from that anxiety or grievance that they are being deprived of certain trade in addition to the trade that is being done properly under the Act. They feel, however, that they are being deprived of other trade by irregular means.
In reply to the Deputy, the question of fish, of course, can come up for further consideration, although, from what I have heard, there is not likely to be anything effective done. I could ask to have it further considered by the committee and by the Department. There is no point in mentioning the names of the committee here. It changes from time to time, according to the wishes of the bodies that are represented upon it, the county councils, the municipal councils, and the General Council of County Councils.
Are the names published from time to time?
Yes.
Will the Minister give me an explanation as to the reason for the delay in his Department this year. If he is not prepared to give a reason for a delay in 1927, perhaps he will give the reason for the delay this year? I have given him particulars of a case sent forward on March 7th, 1929, and no report was received up to the 14th August, 1929. If he would give us an explanation of how that occurred we would be very grateful. In another case the storekeeper states:—
"The handling of samples of clothing materials for test continues to be hopelessly inefficient. We are now awaiting reports on samples sent forward May 1st— two samples (second lot), June 5th —6 samples."
They were waiting for one report from May 1st until July 10th, 1929, and for another report from March 7th until 14th August, 1929. If the Minister could explain that delay in his Department perhaps we would be able to get a little further.
I am certainly prepared to read in the debates what the Deputy has said in regard to matters relating to 1929, but I wonder would the Deputy explain if his attention to his duties as a member of the South Cork Board of Health is so terribly serious why he neglected going to the Department or coming to this House since March, 1929.
If there was never a member in this Dáil his Department is there, paid to attend to this business. The local body send up their reports to him. They send up the minutes of their meetings. Whether he reads them or not I do not know, but it is his duty and the duty of his Department to look into them and not my duty to raise them here. The officials in his Department are well paid out of the taxpayers' pockets to look into these matters and our secretary is paid to send them up to him. If he will accept a little schoolmastering from me, it is his job and the job of his officials and not mine.
Arising out of the same Act, there is a question of the Alien Restrictions Act which has been renewed from year to year. It is an Act which goes behind the establishment of the Dáil. I asked for details about the legislation which had been promised dealing with the naturalisation of aliens. The answer I got to the question was that the Minister for Justice did not seem to think that the one Act could deal with the two. I would like to know whether the legislation that is going to be brought in will cover not only the restriction of aliens coming into the country but will also deal with those conditions under which aliens will be able to become naturalised citizens of the country. I think the Minister for Finance intended to deal with this matter. Perhaps the Minister for Local Government could tell us?
The Minister for Finance is, I know, prepared to deal with this matter. If he does not arrive before this discussion is finished, it can be dealt with on the Report Stage.
May I ask a question with regard to the Local Government (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923? The Memorandum issued in connection with this Bill states:
"This Act mainly provides for the validation of the County Schemes of poor relief. It is necessary to continue it pending a more comprehensive re-organisation of the law relating to the relief of the poor. The report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the laws affecting the sick and destitute poor and the insane poor has been considered and proposals for legislation of a permanent nature will be introduced. A note on this Act is attached."
May I ask the Minister if he has any idea when such legislation will be introduced?
There are quite a number of matters arising out of the report which the Deputy spoke about that are being dealt with administratively. If there is any particular point that the Deputy requires special information about, if he will put down a question I will have it answered. On the general question of the code, the codifying of the whole poor law is engaging the attention of the Department at the present moment. A very considerable amount of work has been done in connection with it. I mentioned, I think in the Seanad last year, that that was being done. A certain amount of progress has been made since, but I am not able to report progress to the extent that I could suggest a particular date or give a general idea as to when legislation may be introduced. I realise that the permanent Act dealing with the Poor Law is an Act that is urgently necessary, and I am having the work, as far as that Act is concerned, speeded forward as best I can. If, in the meantime, there are any particular aspects of the report that the Deputy would like to have information about, I will get that information for him if he will be good enough to put me a question.
I think there was a promise made not long ago by the President, if I am not mistaken, on the question of special treatment for widows and orphans. That is dealt with in the report of the Poor Law Commission. Is there any legislation in view with regard to that matter?
On that matter the Executive Council have not committed themselves to the acceptance of any of the recommendations of the Commission. What has been explained is that the actuary who had to cover the ground of the report as to the conditions upon which any scheme could be set up has asked for a certain amount of information and I think there are something like a dozen headings of the information he has asked for that are still dependent in one way or another upon information that can come only from further examination of the Census returns of 1926. In so far as it is possible to speed up that information it is being done, but it would be impossible for the Executive Council either to commit themselves to a policy on the matter or to prepare their proposals without the actuarial report which we cannot satisfactorily have without the information we are waiting for from the Census returns.
Perhaps the Minister for Finance is now prepared to deal with the question of the naturalisation of aliens.
The Act that is being continued is simply an Act which prevents aliens entering the country and remaining here, except with licence. It is operated jointly by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Justice. The Minister for Justice, through the police or other sources, has to satisfy himself as to the general character and desirability of aliens. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has the duty of seeing whether, in view of employment conditions here and the work which the alien coming in proposes to engage in, it is justifiable to allow him to enter and remain.
The question of naturalisation is a different one; it is under active consideration at the moment. As a matter of fact, it was being very actively dealt with at one period and was dropped a year ago. It is proposed that the legislation will cover all the means by which a person may acquire citizenship here; that is to say, that as regards an alien actually in the country and not a citizen, or an alien who may at some future time come to the country, it will specify a period of residence before application can be entertained and the conditions under which the application will be granted. I remember in the early stages, 2½ or 3 years ago, that there was a discussion about one of the points raised before us relating to the period of years.
Schedule and Title agreed to. Bill ordered to be reported.