Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 18 Feb 1925

Vol. 4 No. 11

PRIVATE BUSINESS. - LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL, 1924.—REPORT STAGE.

I beg to move the following amendment:—

Before section 2 to insert a new section as follows:—

"2.—In every enactment or order containing the expression ‘lunatic asylum,' or the expression ‘asylum' referring to and meaning a lunatic asylum, the expression ‘mental hospital' shall be deemed to be substituted for such expression ‘lunatic asylum' or ‘asylum' (as the case may be); provided that no proceeding in any court shall be invalidated, and no document, legal instrument or other matter, thing or act in the law of any kind shall be deemed invalid, incorrect or irregular or otherwise affected by reason only of the use in any such proceeding, document or instrument or in relation to any such matter or act, of the expression ‘lunatic asylum' or ‘asylum' instead of the expression ‘mental hospital.'"

I had this amendment down for consideration on the Committee stage, and I think the Minister promised to look into the matter. The object of the amendment is to substitute the words "mental hospital" for the words "lunatic asylum." As far as I can gather, the change which I propose is generally regarded as a desirable one. As a matter of fact, the term "mental hospital" has been in use now for some considerable time.

I am accepting the principle of the amendment, and I am introducing an amendment, No. 58, which embodies the principle aimed at.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

This amendment then will come up more appropriately when we are considering the Government amendment, No. 58. I will mention the matter then.

I beg to move:—

In Section 8, sub-section (2), to delete the words "on which" and to substitute therefor the words "which shall be prescribed by the Minister for the holding of."

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I understand the Government is accepting this amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I beg to move the following amendment, which is consequential on the one that has just been agreed to:—

In Section 8, sub-section (2), to delete the words "is held."

Amendment put and agreed to.

I beg to move:—

In Section 18 to delete the words "take all such steps" and to substitute therefor the words "recommend to the local authorities such measures."

This amendment was left over for the Report Stage. It is clear that, as the section now reads, the Minister may have power in the case of a patient to impose any form of expensive treatment on a local authority against their will. It is with a view to safeguarding the ratepayers against action of that kind that this amendment is put down.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

There is a new amendment by the Government on the White Paper which probably would cover your point, Senator. It is No. 4 (a) on the White Paper. I do not know whether the words in that amendment would cover your amendment or not.

I think they would cover my next amendment rather than this one. What is feared in this amendment is, not that the Minister may impose treatment or ever an operation against the wishes of the patient, but that he may commit the local authority against its wishes to very extravagant outlay in the matter of buildings, and it is to give him purely the power of recommendation in such matters that this amendment is put down.

The amendment moved by Senator Sir John Keane would considerably curtail my powers on this matter. As I mentioned when the amendment was under discussion in the Committee Stage, my powers are legislative as well as administrative. I have to take action irrespective altogether of the local authorities in many cases. Under this amendment I could only act through local authorities. Sometimes it may be my duty to bring in a particular Bill dealing with an epidemic or some measure for the prevention of disease. I have to deal with various bodies besides the local authorities. I have to deal with hospitals in some cases, the General Medical Council, the Dental Council, and various bodies of that kind, and if this amendment were inserted I would have no authority, except in respect of local authorities, to make recommendations. As well as that I have to do more than make recommendations to local authorities. I have to send medical inspectors round to see that local authorities are carrying out their duties properly. If this amendment were accepted I would not have that power and for these reasons I must refuse to accept the amendment.

Amendment put and negatived.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

The next is a Government amendment, in Section 18, page 10, to add at the end of the section the words: "Provided that this section shall not be deemed to confer on the Minister any power in addition to the powers otherwise conferred on him by law."

Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.

I beg to move amendment 6:—

New section. Before Section 19 to insert a new section as follows:—

19.—For the removing of doubts, it is hereby declared that it is the duty of a coroner to hold an inquest in respect of every death occurring or dead body lying in his district in respect of which there is any reasonable cause to believe that the death may have been due to some cause other than common illness.

I understand that what I propose in this amendment is the law in England and in other countries at the present time. A coroner is bound to hold an inquest on any person who dies from any cause otherwise than ordinary illness. Previously, coroners were paid so much per inquest and I think the present salaries of coroners were made up on that basis. They have fixed salaries now and the coroner can exercise his discretion as to whether it is necessary to hold an inquest or not. I think it should be laid down by law that the coroner is bound to hold an inquest in the case of any death due to anything other than natural causes.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Then your amendment should be amended by deleting the word "is" and inserting instead thereof the words "shall be," so that it would read: "For the removing of doubts it is hereby declared that it shall be the duty of the coroner to hold an inquest, etc."

I submit that the amendment would be out of place in the present Bill. This is rather a matter for the Minister for Justice. I have no jurisdiction over those coroners, and I think it would be quite out of place to insert such a provision in a Local Government Act. It would be a matter entirely for the Minister for Justice.

When a death is reported to the coroner by the Civic Guard, and formerly by the Royal Irish Constabulary, that report did not say whether an inquest was necessary or not. If there are any suspicious circumstances attending the death, they are reported to the coroner, but it is at his discretion to hold an inquest or not.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I have to deal with the objection raised by the Minister on the ground that this amendment is outside the scope of the Bill. I have to see whether it is or not, so I want to know, because I cannot profess to have all these things present to my mind. There has been some recent legislation regarding the position of coroners, and I want to know whether that was done by the Local Government Act or not, or how was it done.

It was done by the Minister for Justice.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

In that case I must rule this amendment is outside the scope of this Bill. I think the coroner is not a Local Government official at all, and under a Local Government Bill I do not think it would be in the jurisdiction of the House to introduce any measure dealing with the coroner.

Of course, I bow to your ruling, but the coroner is elected by the county council. I do not mind how this amendment is got in, but I say there is necessity for it. I have in my mind cases where in the public good inquests were necessary, in my view, but on more than one occasion none were held. I think coroners ought to be bound to hold inquests where death has occurred otherwise than through natural causes. It should not be at the discretion of the coroner.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I had not present to my mind the fact you just mentioned, that these gentlemen are appointed by the county councils. That is recent legislation. They used to be selected by popular election, but if the coroner is now an official of the county council, and appointed by them and subject to their control, I confess I have changed my opinion, and I say your amendment is in order.

The coroners are elected by the county councils who have to find their salaries.

The County councils appoint coroners since the Act of 1898 and pay them, but they have no jurisdiction over them.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

This amendment does not propose to exercise any jurisdiction over the coroner by the county council. It is an amendment sought to be put into this Bill saying it shall be his duty to do certain things, and as this Bill deals with local government and the whole system of local government I think it would be a strong thing for me to rule out of order an amendment that deals with the duty of one of the officials elected and paid by the county councils.

A coroner, apparently, occupies a very privileged position. He is elected by the county council and the county council pays his salary, but I do not think the county council can remove him. I think the only person who can remove him is the Governor-General, or some high authority of that kind, acting, I presume, on instructions from the Minister for Justice. I think it is very debatable whether he is not really a county council officer, inasmuch as he is elected by the county council.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

I have ruled that he has sufficient connection with the county council to make the amendment relevant. I am not suggesting that the House should pass it, but it is within the power of the House to deal with it.

The proposition really is that he is a county council officer, but he is only removable upon the order of the Minister for Justice. Most of the regulations relating to coroners, I imagine, have been made by legislation ad hoc; there has been a Bill dealing with the functions, powers, and so forth, of coroners, and if this question were a very burning one, and if the Senator who is interested in the matter could bring sufficient pressure upon the Minister for Justice to introduce a Coroners' Regulation Bill, it would be the simplest way out of the difficulty. I think the amendment is a very good one, and I will vote for it.

I suggest for the consideration of the mover of this amendment that he should alter the form of it, because it seems to me that if it is passed in its present form it would affect no alteration whatever. Unless you say who is to be the judge as to whether the necessity arises it still remains that the coroner can decide.

I wish to call the attention of the House to the form of this amendment. It seems to me to be a very objectionable thing to begin by saying, "For the removing of doubts, it is hereby declared," etc. I entirely agree with Senator Bagwell that as it stands it really would not have any effect. If we are to pass it at all it should be "the Coroner shall hold an inquest in respect of," make it his duty to do so, except there has been a medical certificate or something that will remove doubts. The amendment seems to me to be very vague.

At the end there is the term, "common illness." I wonder would that include death from small-pox, or the Black Death, and that it should be left to the coroner to decide whether he should hold an inquest.

In the old days, when coroners were paid expenses such as travelling expenses, and certain fees were paid to the person who discovered the dead body or for reporting any occurrence in which death ensued, it was notorious that one corpse did duty on several occasions. There are startling instances on record. As long as the body was fairly sound it was moved round the particular district and was a source of considerable remuneration to all concerned. If this amendment were passed that might possibly be perpetuated. I do not know whether any expenses are paid now. The amendment says, "in respect of every dead body lying in his district." The body may be in one place in the coroner's district to-day and in another place to-morrow, and if he would be compelled to hold an inquest every time the body is found I do not know what it would result in. However, I merely put that aspect forward. It is possible that there is another little flaw in the wording of the amendment.

I am sure there are any number of flaws in the amendment, but if I can achieve my object I do not mind what words I use. What I want to achieve is that where a death occurs from any cause other than illness the coroner will be bound to hold an inquest. As I have said, heretofore a coroner was paid so much per inquest. Now the coroner is paid a salary, which covers travelling expenses. Whether that is responsible for it or not I know that there have been cases where inquests were necessary but where they were not held. If I can have it made compulsory on the coroner to hold an inquest on every person who dies from any cause other than illness I am satisfied. We can easily delete the first few words of the amendment if they are objected to. I did not bother about the form of the amendment.

I do not agree with Senator De Loughry, and I think there is no necessity for this amendment. He may have in his mind some specific case where the Coroner did not perform his duty, but it is a different thing to introduce legislation for the regulation of the duties of coroners generally. If I am correctly informed at present the coroner is bound to hold an inquest where suspicious circumstances are reported to him. If on investigation there are not sufficient suspicious circumstances about the case there is no necessity for holding an inquest, and I think we are only duplicating legislation if we pass this amendment.

I think it is within the knowledge of most of us that during the last few years coroners did not always hold inquests in questionable cases. Sometimes, I think, they were not allowed to do so, but in any case they did not. In order that this amendment may be a good one, I move that the first line be ereased, with the exception of the word "it," and the amendment would then run, "It shall be the duty of a coroner to hold an inquest."

It might enlighten the House to know what really happens at present when the coroner is called into action. The naturalness or not of the death is at his discretion, because a doctor can certify anything he wishes if he were so minded, about a patient's demise. The coroner can hold an inquest at his discretion, if a man is operated on at 12 o'clock, and dies at ten minutes past twelve, in spite of anything in the medical certificate. Formerly coroners were paid by results. If we remove the incentive to hold the inquest, we will have to put somebody in a judicial position to decide whether the death is natural or not. A super-coroner and medical officer would be required. The amendment would be effectual if the remuneration were left on the old basis, by results. I do think that the principle is absolutely essential; the greatest protection of the public from unnatural death is the appeal to the coroner's court, and you are lessening that protection if you allow the coroner discretion as regards the holding or non-holding of inquests.

I am not in a position to accept the amendment for the reason I have stated. It is true, of course, that the coroner is elected by the county council, but administratively he is under the control of the Ministry of Justice. I have nothing to do with the rules and regulations controlling this officer, and I am not in a position to know what are the pros. and cons. for or against this amendment. The Minister for Justice would require to be here to say whether from the Government point of view it would be acceptable or not.

The coroner appears to have a divided responsibility, first, to the county council, and then to the Minister for Justice. I think it is eminently desirable that his duty should be prescribed, and carefully prescribed. This amendment seeks to lay down that it is his duty to do a certain thing, and then if he fails to do his duty he comes within the jurisdiction of the Minister for Justice. I think it would be certainly desirable that such an amendment as this should be inserted in the Bill.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

Senator de Loughry, do you accept the suggestion of Senator Colonel Moore to amend the amendment by omitting the words before, "it shall be the duty"?

Yes, sir.

Amendment, as amended, put and declared carried on a show of hands.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

As we have a considerable number of amendments, I must remind the house that under our Standing Orders the procedure is this: Every amendment on the Report Stage has not only to be moved but seconded, and no Senator is at liberty to speak upon it more than once except the mover. He has the right to reply. Therefore, the mover of an amendment will withold his reply to the end of the discussion on this amendment, because after he rises to reply I cannot call upon any other Senator.

I beg to move:—

Section 21, sub-section (3), page 11. After sub-section (3) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(4) Provided that nothing in this Act shall prejudicially affect the right of any local authority to whom additional duties have been transferred under this Act from obtaining such recoupment from the Local Taxation Account or other source for salaries and other expenditure as was hitherto payable in connection with such duties.

I beg to second the amendment.

I accept that amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I beg to move:—

Section 21, sub-section (4), page 11. To add at the end of the sub-section the words "and shall act as Local Government Inspector in connection with the administration of county hospitals, county homes, mental hospitals and dispensaries in the area assigned to him.

This amendment seeks to do away with redundant officers and officials. At present I understand these institutions are inspected by a staff of some 17 lay inspectors and 10 medical inspectors. Under the Bill there will be a new office created, that is, the office of County Medical Officer of Health, and the amendment proposes that within his jurisdiction and area he shall act as Local Government Inspector for all these institutions. That is on the administrative side of these institutions. In addition to the lay inspectors and the medical inspectors, there is a staff of auditors. I do not propose to impose any of the duties of the auditors on the medical officers, but only to appoint them Local Government inspectors so far as the administrative side of these institutions is concerned. I do not think that would inflict any great extra burden on these men who will be highly qualified men, seeing that at present similar duties with regard to mental hospitals, of which there are 20 in the Free State, are carried out by one official. One official, I believe, is competent to inspect and supervise the administrative side of the 20 mental hospitals in the Free State. Generally speaking, I think there is and should be a disposition to cut down as far as possible, the clerical staffs and the inspecting staffs of the various departments, in the first place in the interests of economy, and in the next place to reduce overlapping and redundancy.

Under the present system we have one of the medical inspectors going down to-day to a dispensary and inspecting under the Medical Charities Act. To-morrow you have a lay inspector going down to inspect under the Public Health Act. These are all highly paid officers of the central authority, and their travelling expenses and hotel expenses are going on all the time. At the time of taking the latest return, I find that we had a staff of inspectors for the Free State of fortythree, whereas for the whole of Ireland under the old régime we had only about the same, or one or two less. That seems to require looking into, and this is the first move that I propose, at any rate, in the direction of making an effort to help to put down these highly expensive, redundant, and over-lapping services. You will do away, by this amendment, with your seventeen lay inspectors. The ten medical inspectors might get the option of taking counties that may be assigned to them as County Medical Officers of Health. They can still retain their inspectorial capacity, under the Local Government Department, and then, simply instead of seventeen lay inspectors, you appoint additional County Medical Officers of Health for the twenty-six counties. You have to-day between lay inspectors and medical inspectors, twenty-seven inspectors, and under the new order, proposed in this amendment you will have twenty-six county officers taking the place of these and doing the double duty. That will be a difference of one, and I am sure you will require one or two more in order to act as relieving officers for County Health Officers in the case of sickness or otherwise.

I beg to second.

I rise to oppose this amendment. I certainly am in favour of economy, but I think to practise economy in this instance, to the danger of the public health is not wise. After all the County Medical Officer of Health is appointed by the local authority, and if the local authority is out for economy, he would be very likely to make a big effort to satisfy their desires. Apart altogether from that, if any epidemic occurs in the country, it is very likely that a travelling official such as a doctor of the Local Government Department would be more likely to know the incidence of the disease, the progress of its course, and the various other matters connected with it, and he would be much more capable of putting an end to it than any mere local man would. I do not say that if a local doctor had time at his disposal to deal with such outbreaks he would not be competent to deal with them, but he would not have the same opportunity that the travelling doctor would as the inspector appointed by the Local Government Board through the country. They are acquainted with every new phase of disease, and they study it very carefully.

I think that their advice is useful and almost essential to the economic administration of public health. For that reason I think that an amendment such as this, a promise to do away with their existence, would be an injury to public health generally and mistaken economy, and a thing that should not be tried in a Bill like this.

I cannot accept the amendment. Senator Kenny has been rather incisive in his criticism of the expenditure on my Department, but I might say that we are carrying on that Department, with all its functions that were being carried on by the British Government, with a saving of £15,000 per annum, so that Senator Kenny need have no fears on that score. I think it would be very inadvisable to appoint these new county medical officers as inspectors. It will be very necessary when these men are appointed, men new to this work, who have had no experience of public health administration and who are taking over new offices, that there should be inspection by the central authority in order that they would carry out their work properly. I think it would be very wrong to put untried men into the position of local Czars. These men will have very wide powers under the Bill as it is, and if we put in this amendment they will be put in the position that they will have no inspectors over them to see that they are carrying out their functions. The result would be that they might be carrying out their duties in a slipshod manner. Perhaps in fifteen years' time, when the Bill is working satisfactorily, some development of that kind would be possible. At the present time, however, it would be very inadvisable to grant such very wide powers to officers who have no experience on such matters.

There is some slight misconception on the Minister's part. Perhaps that was due to my not elaborating my point sufficiently. It was not intended by the amendment that there should be no inspection of the county medical officers of health. The general inspectors from headquarters would see that they would do their duty. I am quite surprised at the Minister stating that it would be inadvisable to accept this amendment because of the fact that these men would be inexperienced and untried. I say that is decidedly retrogressive. You cannot have a medical officer in this position unless he has been both tried and experienced. He will require to be an experienced and a tried officer and a man of very high standing in his profession. You are not going to have a man to perform the duties that are going to be assigned to such an officer, very serious duties in which human life is involved over a very wide area, unless he is a man of a very high standard. You certainly are not going, and the Seanad is not going, to be a party to the suggestion made by the Minister that new and untried and inexperienced men are going to be put into these positions. You are not going to do that. It was also suggested here, and it was endorsed by the Minister, that these men are going to cost you £400 or £500 a year. You will not get any man of standing in the medical profession to take up these positions at this figure. You will possibly get a man at that figure who has completed his medical course and with perhaps a year's experience. You had instances the other day where, on the suggestion and initiative of the Local Government Department, it was sought to get experienced men for dispensary work rather than young fledglings. Now, the suggestion is that men be appointed as county medical officers of health, which is a very much more serious and onerous position than that of the ordinary medical officer. These positions will have to be filled by men who have been tried and experienced.

I would like to point out that when I said that these men would be untried and inexperienced, I meant that they would be untried and inexperienced as county medical officers, because they could not be tried and experienced as county medical officers until they had experience in these positions.

I accept that. I am not to blame for the misinterpretation. Before I sit down I would like to correct that other impression to which expression has been given, namely, that £400 or £500 a year would be the salary of these men. If you want to get men of high standing they will cost you £1,000 a year and I would approve of that, for you will get good men. Under these circumstances I will not press the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move:—

In Section 21, sub-section (6), page 11, line 38. To delete the words "performance of his duties" and to substitute therefor the words "service of one or more local authorities."

This was an amendment which I moved in Committee and it was allowed to stand over until the Report Stage in order that we might consider the wording of it. The object of the amendment was this——.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

It is accepted. It is to cover the cases of men who served under one or more local authorities.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 21, as amended, put and agreed to.

AN CATHAOIRLEACH

There is a Government amendment to insert a new Section 22.

New section. Before Section 22 to insert a new section as follows:—

At least one of the sanitary officers appointed by any sanitary authority under the provisions of Section 11 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, shall be a duly qualified veterinary surgeon and the duties assigned to such officer shall include inspection and examination of meat, inspection of cattle in dairies and other similar duties.

On the Committee Stage, there was an amendment inserted to make it obligatory to appoint veterinary surgeons as sanitary officers and for some reason, owing to the wording or otherwise, the amendment was not accepted. I think that, perhaps, this amendment might be more acceptable to the Seanad. It is very necessary that these veterinary officers should be appointed where possible. The duties to be carried out are very technical. In the past, and at the present time, sanitary regulations with regard to milk and the inspection of meat and the inspection of foodstuffs for export have not been carried out as stringently as they should have been and it is necessary that we should have some co-ordination of these duties. For instance, some time ago an abattoir was inspected here in this City of Dublin. The owner of this abattoir objected to the inspection of the meat and the veterinary officer insisted on having his inspection. The result was that the owner removed it outside the City limit, with the consequences that no inspection was carried out and meat of any description would in this way be foisted on the Dublin citizens. It is very necessary that veterinary officers should be appointed to carry out these technical duties which can only be carried out by persons who have technical training in meat inspection and in looking after dairies and cowsheds. This amendment makes it obligatory to have one veterinary officer appointed in each Public Health area for carrying out this inspection. As the law stands at present, I have ample powers to appoint such an officer. But this section makes it compulsory instead of its being permissive. I consider that it is a very necessary addition to our Public Health code.

Since this matter was raised on the Committee Stage, I notice that the association of the veterinary profession has been very busy, but I am rather apprehensive that this House is not inclined to encroach upon their professional privileges. I want to be perfectly clear about this question. The main objection, so far as my recollection goes, arose out of the matter mentioned by the Minister; that is, co-ordination. We objected to these professional gentlemen over-lapping under the different Acts, and the danger we apprehend is that you would have one veterinary officer appointed to carry out the duties under the Public Health Act and another to cover the same ground, to carry out the duties under the Diseases of Animals Act. This is extravagant and objectionable, in view of the straitened condition of our local finances, but can the Minister give us any assurance that one and the same officer will do these jobs? If he can give us that assurance, it will be perfectly satisfactory, otherwise I think this amendment should be resisted, simply on the grounds that it is going to create over-lapping and extravagance. If a county has power to appoint only one veterinary officer, is there any assurance that the whole county will be covered by this professional man? These officers are allocated to areas, and the object of this amendment will be only very partially served if a veterinary officer is confined to a limited area of a county. I would like to know what the Government have to say on this matter. I think the result would be ineffective if the veterinary officer is not going to cover the whole area of the county.

The Senator has raised the point about dividing the duties of the veterinary surgeon, and has pointed out that some men are carrying out duties under the Diseases of Animals Act, and more of them are carrying out duties under the Dairies and Cowsheds Order, and under the Meat Inspection and Public Health Acts. It was the original intention to co-ordinate these duties under the Diseases of Animals Act in the officer who would carry out the duties under the Public Health Act, but that is a matter for arrangement with the Minister for Agriculture. I do not think that the Minister for Agriculture is quite satisfied with the administration of the Diseases of Animals Act. Throughout the country there is, I think, a good deal of dissatisfaction with its administration, and particularly with regard to the killing of tubercular cattle, which is on a very extravagant scale, and it is a matter that will have to be worked out later on administratively. I would like to have this particular power in case we appoint a whole-time veterinary officer later on to carry out the co-ordinated duties.

It was our intention originally to have one veterinary officer carrying out all the veterinary duties in the county, but I think the veterinary profession themselves are opposed to that at present, and we have not been able to get any clear-cut policy. No matter what policy is decided on later on, it would be necessary to have at least one officer carrying out these duties in every public health area. As Senator Sir John Keane has pointed out, one veterinary officer, who is only a part-time officer, would not be able to reach on all the duties of the public health district, but it would be better to have one than none at all. If, as I say, we are able to co-ordinate the duties and appoint a full-time officer I will have ample power if this amendment is carried, otherwise I would not be in a position to do so.

I hope the Government will persevere with this proposal, which I regard as a most important one. Even supposing it turned out to be expensive in its operation, I think, on the whole, that it would be very well justified. We are working to affect an improvement in the cattle breeding, and in the milk and butter industries, and generally to assist the farmers scientifically by every means in our power. It is perfectly obvious that if you are to have proper dairies and abattoirs you will have to have security that tubercular milk will not be supplied, and you will require to have competent authorities, trained inspectors, to carry out work of this kind. I think this proposal is essential to the proper carrying out of the supervision of dairies and abattoirs.

I am in accord with the principle of having one dairy inspector, such as is proposed. I can visualise what will arise. You have already in some counties people appointed under the Dairies and Cowsheds Act to inspect these places. If you are going to insist on getting new men to do these duties it will be incumbent on you to pension these existing officers. That is not a position that should be allowed to arise. It is stated that the duties of these men should include the inspection of cattle and dairies, and you have already under the Dairies and Cowsheds Act men appointed for a number of years to do these duties. If these men are replaced it is not improbable that they will have to be compensated. We should get an assurance that the men already in office, if they are qualified for the positions, will be appointed under the new scheme, and unless such an assurance is given I shall oppose the amendment. I am anxious that a veterinary surgeon should be appointed for the whole county if necessary.

Amendment put and declared carried on a show of hands.

AN LEAS - CHATHAOIRLEACH

took the Chair.

AN LEAS - CHATHAOIRLEACH

The House will now take up the Report Stage of the Live Stock Bill.

Why should we not proceed with the Bill we have been considering?

AN LEAS - CHATHAOIRLEACH

I understood the Seanad decided, at the suggestion of the Cathaoirleach, to go on with this Bill. I am entirely in the hands of the Seanad.

I propose we continue with the Bill we have been discussing.

I second that.

AN LEAS - CHATHAOIRLEACH

The position, I think, is very clear. At the last meeting of the Seanad the Cathaoirleach made a suggestion, to which no Senator raised any objection.

That suggestion was that at 4.15 we should adjourn the Local Government Bill and take up the Live-Stock Breeding Bill. The Seanad has the power to reverse that and take any Bill it thinks fit.

Does the Minister desire that arrangement to be carried out?

Agreed.

Barr
Roinn