Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 23 Apr 1931

Vol. 38 No. 2

In Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 3—Department of the President of the Executive Council.

Minister for Finance (Mr. Blythe)

I move:

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £7,543 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1932, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Roinn Uachtarán na hArd-Chomhairle.

That a sum not exceeding £7,543 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the President of the Executive Council.

There is little change in the Vote. The principal feature of difference is that the private secretary to the President at the time the Estimate had been made up had not been transferred from the Department of Defence, in which Vote his salary appears. There is a reduction also in the travelling expenses. The Department of the President bears the expense of delegates to a number of conferences which are not of a Departmental nature, and it is not anticipated that conferences of that sort will absorb the same amount this year.

Mr. de Valera

I think that the matter which Deputy Davin raised to-day would be a suitable one for taking up on this Estimate. It concerns the policy of the Executive Council as a whole, and from the replies made by the President, and also from the fact that raising it on the adjournment would not give an opportunity to Deputies, other than the Deputy who raised the question, to discuss it, I think it is right that we should take advantage of this Estimate to deal with it—that is, the question of discrimination in the employment given on public works.

Mr. Davin

Before Deputy de Valera proceeds to deal with the matter of which I gave notice to raise on the adjournment, I might say that I fully realise that it involves the policy of the Government. Since question time I have discussed the matter with the object of getting a more suitable opportunity, if you like, of discussing the whole matter involved, and it has been arranged that this is an issue which might be raised on the Vote for the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has undertaken to answer for the Government policy on that matter. In view of that, perhaps Deputy de Valera will leave the question over until that Vote comes before the House.

Mr. de Valera

If this Vote is postponed I would be very glad to do that. Perhaps Deputy Davin would be prepared to make his case now, as not merely the Department of Industry and Commerce but a number of Departments are involved. That is a matter of the policy of the Executive as a whole.

I intended bringing this matter up on this Vote independently of the question raised to-day, and I would prefer Deputy Davin to use this particular occasion to deal with it. But if he has made an arrangement with the Minister for Industry and Commerce to answer, then I think the best way of dealing with it would be to postpone the consideration of this Vote, if the Minister is prepared to do that, until that particular matter is dealt with.

Mr. Davin

I share the view expressed by Deputy de Valera that this is a matter to be dealt with on the Vote for the President of the Executive Council, because three or four Ministers are involved, and the President as head of the Executive is responsible for the whole of them. I did not know Deputy de Valera was going to raise it, but I would prefer if he could see his way to agree to the arrangement arrived at.

Mr. Blythe

I do not see any reason why this particular Vote should be postponed. As a matter of fact there is collective responsibility, and if a Minister is willing to answer for the Government policy, then Government policy can be raised on any Minister's Vote. It cannot be taken that Government policy can only be raised on the Vote for the Department of the President of the Executive Council.

Mr. de Valera

It seems to me that this is a most appropriate place to raise it as it is a Vote on which the administration of the Executive Council, as a whole, is subject to criticism. Is there any good reason why, in view of the circumstances that have arisen, the Minister should insist upon taking this Vote now?

Mr. Blythe

No. I think that this is the appropriate occasion on which to raise this matter, but I do not think that it is the only appropriate occasion. It could be raised on any Vote provided that, as in the case here, the Minister says he is willing to answer. The only circumstance in which it must be raised on this Vote is if no Minister is willing to answer; certainly, in that case, as a matter of general policy, the Vote for the Department of the President would be the proper place to raise it.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not know whether Deputy Davin only intends to raise the subject matter of his own question which has relation to preference on works carried out under the Relief Scheme Vote. I think it is Deputy de Valera's intention to raise the whole issue, not only as applied to relief schemes, but to all public works in the State. For this reason I think that the President's Vote would be more appropriate than that for the Minister for Industry and Commerce on which to raise these matters. There is another reason. There may be other matters to be raised, and on that particular Vote, therefore, we would not have a straight debate upon it. The issue would be confused by other matters which would necessarily have to be raised upon the Vote as the only appropriate occasion in which they could be raised. Therefore, it seems that Deputy de Valera's suggestion is a wise one that we should postpone the President's Vote and raise the general question upon that Vote rather than the Vote for the Minister for Industry and Commerce so that the discussion on the Vote for the Minister for Industry and Commerce should be confined to matters that relate to his own Department.

Mr. Blythe

An arrangement has been come to, and I see no reason to depart from it. No opportunity will be lost. If this Vote is postponed, presumably the Vote for the Minister for Industry and Commerce will be taken before it. In that case the arrangement Deputy Davin made would be carried out, and this matter would be discussed on that Vote, and, I presume, could not be discussed again. In view of the fact that an arrangement has been made and the Minister for Industry and Commerce has agreed to answer on his own Vote, I see no reason for this Vote being postponed.

Mr. de Valera

Could the Minister for Industry and Commerce come in now and let the whole matter be raised completely here?

Mr. Blythe

I do not think so.

Mr. Davin

I had intended to take advantage of my right on the adjournment to raise this question, and I gave notice of it. Of course one gets a far better opportunity on a Vote to make his case than on the motion for the adjournment. I was not aware that Deputy de Valera was going to raise this matter, and as a result of the arrangement I handed in an amendment to Vote 56 to refer it back for reconsideration and to take advantage of that motion to raise this particular issue.

Mr. Aiken

I suggest, if Deputy Davin is prepared to speak now, that he should lead off. The President to-day was most impertinent when Deputy Davin raised this question. The Vote for the President's Department is now under consideration, and I suggest that Deputy Davin should lead off now with the case he was prepared to make, and we could follow.

Mr. Davin

I am prepared to state the case here at this particular moment if necessary. But I think that Deputy Aiken as a Whip should realise that when an arrangement is arrived at it should be carried out. I have handed in a motion to refer back Vote 56, and I think the House will agree that that will be the most appropriate occasion to deal with this whole matter.

Mr. de Valera

It seems to me that that debate quite possibly might be unsatisfactory and narrowed from the general point of view. If this particular Vote were postponed we could either say we are satisfied that the discussion has been satisfactory, or we could resume it in any particular form we wanted upon this Vote when it came up again. As far as I can see, the solution of it depends largely upon the Minister. If he is prepared to postpone the Vote there is no difficulty. If he is not prepared to postpone the Vote the question arises whether we should forego our rights and accept the arrangement made by Deputy Davin or not.

Mr. Blythe

I would not raise any question about postponing the Vote if I thought it would in any way deprive Deputies of a chance of debating the matter, but I am quite satisfied that they can debate it as fully and widely on the Vote for the Minister for Industry and Commerce as arranged.

Mr. Lemass

The only objection I can see to that is that the Vote for the Minister for Industry and Commerce is one on which a variety of subjects can be raised, and some of these this year will have particular significance and importance, and it would be difficult to have these matters discussed in the same debate as this matter of the preferential treatment of ex-National Army men, and as there is a Vote here to-day to which obviously it has relation, it is much better that it should be raised upon that.

Mr. MacEntee

It seems to me that of all the Votes that could be chosen upon which to have a discussion on this matter, that of the Department of Industry and Commerce is the least suitable. After all, the Minister whose fiat governs the whole of the practice is the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, and not the Minister for Industry and Commerce at all.

Mr. Lemass

They are all in the soup.

Mr. MacEntee

They are, of course, but when these grants are being made it is the Minister for Local Government and Public Health who issues instructions to local authorities.

Mr. Davin

Is the Deputy aware that it is the manager of the local employment exchange who is held responsible for the operation of the existing regulations?

Mr. MacEntee

I know, but it is the Minister for Local Government who enforces the condition that when grants are made to local authorities preferential treatment shall be given to certain people.

Mr. Davin

There are four persons involved.

Mr. MacEntee

There are.

Mr. de Valera

On a number of occasions I tried to raise questions of general policy, and on nearly every occasion I had difficulty with the Chair owing to the circumscribed lines on which the debate was to proceed. My fear is that when we come to deal with this question on the Vote for the Department of Industry and Commerce the debate will be narrowed down to administrative details connected with that particular Department. There is no possibility of narrowing us down on the Vote for the Department of the Executive Council, but I am sorry that this arrangement has been made. While I recognise, however, that, having made it, there is a certain obligation to carry it out unless there is agreement made otherwise, I am sorry that the question is being taken on the Vote for that Department. I would like to see this particular Vote held in reserve, so that if there is any question which, under the rules of debate, could not be covered on the Vote of the Minister for Industry and Commerce we would be free to take it up here. If this Vote is passed it seems to me that our opportunity of discussing the question will slip by, and I am loath to allow that to happen.

Mr. Davin

If I had previous notice that Deputy de Valera intended to raise the issue which I raised by question to-day I would not have agreed to any arrangement which might be in conflict with his views, but having been a party to the arrangement I do not want to break it. In order to get over the whole matter I would ask the Minister for Finance to leave this Vote over until the Vote for the Minister for Industry and Commerce has been dealt with.

Mr. Blythe

I do not see the slightest need for it. I do not think that Deputies will be circumscribed in any way. I do not want to give a hint to Deputies, but the Leader of the Opposition is aware that it could be raised in some form in more ways than one, and if there is anything which he neglected to say on this Vote he can say it on that of the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Mr. Flinn

Is not this the Vote upon which it can be raised in its widest form? Is not the position that an arrangement was made by Deputy Davin and not by anyone else?

Mr. Davin

Not made by me, but as a result of a discussion to-day. I realise as well as Deputy Flinn, who is an able Parliamentarian, that I would get a far better opportunity of raising the case on the Vote than on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Mr. Flinn

If the rest of the House has been a party to the arrangement between Deputy Davin and the Minister we are bound by it, but if we are not a party to it we are not in any way bound. The position is that the Minister is blackmailing us into a restricted discussion from our point of view, on the ground that in so doing Deputy Davin would not be able to carry out his arrangement.

Mr. Davin

I will.

Mr. Flinn

Not if we go on and take the discussion now. We are entitled to go ahead with the discussion if we choose.

Mr. Davin

Of course you are. Go ahead with it.

Mr. de Valera

Am I to take it that the Minister is definitely refusing to postpone the Vote? I think it would save time if he did postpone it. I would prefer that Deputy Davin, having raised this matter, would discuss it, but if he is not going to do it I must deal with it as I know it. The matter was brought to our immediate attention recently by a communication which I received from the Manager of the Dun Laoghaire Borough Council. I got a copy of the resolution, which I dare say was sent to other Parties in the Dáil as well as to us. At the same time it was sent to a number of public bodies throughout the country. This resolution, which was passed by the Borough Council on the 2nd March, reads as follows:—

"That we, the members of the Dun Laoghaire Borough Council, believing that the preference shown to certain sections in the matter of employment on works of public utility is grossly unjust and calculated to foster and maintain differences between Irishmen, express our deep dissatisfaction at the preferential clause inserted in specifications inviting tenders for contracts; that we recognise the rights to an equal share in such work of all able-bodied men, irrespective of class, creed or politics, and call for the immediate abolition of this clause, and that copies of the resolution be sent to the Dublin Corporation, the Dublin County Council, and the public bodies throughout the Free State."

The fact that we get the Borough Council passing a resolution like this shows, at any rate, that in raising this matter we are not raising something for the purpose of pilloring Ministers or for the sake of securing any particular political advantage to ourselves. This matter, of course, was raised long before it came up in this particular form. It was raised by members of the House, by Deputy Davin and others, on a former occasion, and by members of our own Party. I tried to get some information about the position and to get the history of this preferential clause in so far as I could. I found it extremely difficult to get anything really satisfactory or authoritative upon it. The first reference I have been able to find about it was in the first report of the Local Government Department, 1922-25. Apparently, from that document, it was issued in a circular letter to the public bodies about the end of 1923, seven or eight years ago. However, even that much is not quite clear. What the report says is: "It was further considered that in view of the services rendered by the Army to the people of the country preference in employment should be given to demobolised men suitable and willing to undertake road work." The next reference I have been able to find about it is in a reply to a question asked by Deputy Johnson. The reply was given by Deputy Bourke, and the reference is Vol. 14, col. 215, 28th January, 1928. The reply states: "The conditions regarding employment attaching to grants to local authorities for road work are that (a) the maximum rate of wages of an amount specified in each case is applicable to the work (b) preference is to be given to demobilised men of the National Army suitable and willing to undertake road work, and (c) the men required for the work are engaged through the local officer of the Department of Industry and Commerce."

In a supplementary question asked by Deputy Davin as to whether the preference would avail a single ex-soldier against a married man with a family, the Minister said: "That is another question," and did not answer further. The matter apparently was left at that. I cannot find it in the statutory rules, nor can I find it amongst the papers that were ordered to be laid before the House, so that I think the question that was asked by Deputy Aiken to-day as to whether there is any legal authority for this at all is a very pertinent question. It affects all the Departments. It affects the Department of Public Works. It affects the Local Government Department, and as was pointed out by Deputy Davin, it affects the Department of Industry and Commerce inasmuch as the regulations are very often carried out through the manager of the local Labour Exchange. It has undoubtedly given rise to a great deal of criticism, and has caused a considerable amount of hardship. Some excuse could have been made for a rule like this, perhaps, when it was introduced back in 1923, when the Ministry might possibly have a number of men demobilised from the Army for whom they would have a certain amount of responsibility to find work. It is a considerable period now since 1923 and the operations of this preferential clause has worked out to the unfair disadvantage of many people—putting single unmarried men without dependents in the position of getting the means of earning their daily bread when married men or men with dependents, who should have a prior claim on the State, are prevented from earning their livelihood.

I have quoted a resolution from Dun Laoghaire. I will give another typical example. I received a communication recently from Carrick-on-Suir. The people of Carrick-on-Suir for a number of years have been agitating for a sewerage scheme. Finally they came to an arrangement whereby the local people were to put up £9,000 for this scheme, and were to get a grant of £2,000. Whilst this scheme was being agitated, and particularly when such a large proportion of the total sum required was being secured locally, the people who were unemployed in that neighbourhood looked forward to the starting of these works in the hope that it would give much-needed employment to a number of people who were unemployed. I think they expected that employment would be provided for 150 to 200 men. The work started a couple of weeks ago, and to the astonishment of the local people, the people who were employed on this scheme were not married men or men with dependents, but were, it is stated to me, almost exclusively ex-members of the National Army. All the people down there feel that the action of the Government, in having adopted and in pressing this preferential clause, deprives heads of families and the families themselves of their livelihood.

We want to know what good reason the Government can give at this stage for having such a preferential clause. I do not think there should be any interference with the discretion of the local authority. They know the situation they have to deal with, they know the people that are best entitled to get employment and who deserve it most, but if there is to be any interference with the discretion of local authorities in schemes of this kind, in regard to the employment they are to give on them, then the only interference should be to suggest, or, if necessary, to make a regulation, that preference should be given to people who have dependents, either married people or other people with dependents. That is our position in the matter. The attitude of the President to-day in dealing with this was so unsatisfactory that it determined me, at any rate, that when this Vote came along we would definitely raise it to see what account he is able to give of Government policy in this matter. As I have said, everybody knows about it. It has been a general complaint by Deputies on the Labour Benches and on our benches. These Deputies were in touch with local works and have personal knowledge of it. Deputies in my party have spoken to me of the hardships that have resulted from this administrative policy. We want to know why the Government has adopted, and is continuing, this policy. We want to know what legal authority they have for it, and we are not prepared to pass this Vote as long as the President says that he intends pursuing that policy and standing by it. The instances I have given are sufficient to make it clear, I think, to every Deputy what is involved, and I think everyone of us who has any regard for the rights of the community who are out of work will be justified in refusing to pass this Estimate unless the President gives us a guarantee that the policy will be changed.

Mr. Davin

I was quite frank with the House and Deputy de Valera when I stated that as a result of the question which I raised in the House to-day, and following that and a conversation which I had with the President and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, I had agreed, for the purpose of my own convenience and for the purpose of getting the best opportunity to ventilate the grievance which I tried to expose in the question, that this matter had better be raised on the Vote of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. One of the reasons which influenced me to have it raised on the Vote for the Minister for Industry and Commerce rather than on the Vote for the President was the fact that I had read the Order Paper and discovered that Deputy Mullins—I am sorry he is not here now—had given notice that he would move to refer back for reconsideration the Vote required for the Department of the Executive Council. I did not know, and even do not know now, for what reason Deputy Mullins put down that amendment.

Therefore, knowing that there was no amendment down to the Vote for the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and also knowing that the Department of Industry and Commerce had responsibility for the employment exchanges of the country that are responsible for the operation of this objectionable regulation, I concluded that that was the best arrangement I could make to have this matter ventilated. Deputy de Valera anticipated me, and I suppose it was a case of intelligent anticipation, following the cross-fire that arose to day on the unsatisfactory answer I thought I had received from the President in this matter. However, Deputy de Valera has now forced me out of the difficulty in which I found myself, and I certainly think that the time has long since gone when this out-of-date regulation should be wiped out. For that reason, unless the President and the Minister for Industry and Commerce are prepared to give an assurance to the House, I will vote against the Vote for Department of the President of the Executive Council. Coming back to the matter I think the real point in the question on the Order Paper has not been answered or was evaded by the President. The question was:

To ask the Minister for Finance to state the reasons why preference is now being given to citizens who had served in the National Army for work provided out of the Relief Schemes Vote; whether he is aware that many married men with dependents have been unable to secure work as a result of this preferential treatment, and whether he is prepared to withdraw or modify this instruction.

The reply was:

Any preference which may have been given to men who have served in the National Army for employment on relief works was given in accordance with the Government's general policy regarding employment which is remunerated from public funds.

The President, for some reason I have not yet discovered, evaded the real question, which was whether he is prepared to withdraw or modify this instruction or justify its continuance. The National Army has already cost the citizens of this State the sum of £33,908,132. I have taken these figures from the Appropriation Accounts and from the Estimates, and I think the Minister will find my figures correct. That is what it has cost the people of this State to set up an army to settle a dispute between two warring sections of politicians. Out of that, £12,681,942 has been set aside for payment of N.C.O.'s and men, £3,640,524 has been set aside for dependents' allowances, and £2,014,433 for gratuities and pensions. Is there any citizen of this State who can look upon this whole question with an impartial mind but must say that that amount of money is fair payment for the men who gave service for that particular period? If that is so and the House agrees with that point of view, I see no reason for the preferential treatment which is being given seven or eight years after the civil war to that particular class of citizen. I do not know whether Deputy de Valera will agree with my point of view in that. In endeavouring to look at this question from a fair point of view, I put a question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce yesterday.

I asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce to state the total number of unemployed registered in Saorstát Eireann for the week ending 28th March, 1931, and the number of those registered for the same period who had served in the National Army.

The Minister, in reply, stated: The total number of persons registered as unemployed in Saorstát Eireann on the 30th March, 1931, being the nearest date to that mentioned in the question, for which particulars are available, was 25,642, of whom 2,066 persons had served in the National Army.

These figures, which are the only available figures, show clearly that there is no justification at this stage for giving preferential treatment to one-twentieth of the registered unemployed of this State. In quoting the figures regarding the amount set aside for payment of N.C.O.'s and men, dependents' allowances, gratuities and pensions I have excluded payments for civilians attached to units, payments to clergy, medical practitioners, lodging allowances, clothing, office of the Minister for Defence or the Army Finance Officer. In other words I have tried to get figures out of the Estimates which would show the amount of money which has been paid out to the individuals who are now getting this preference. In a supplementary question I asked the President to-day "Is the President aware that the existing regulation has the effect of giving preference to single ex-National Army men, many of whom are, in addition, in receipt of Army pensions, to the exclusion of men with large families." The President in reply stated: "I think that is an exaggeration." I will proceed to the best of my ability to prove from one case at any rate that it is not an exaggeration and from general observations of what is now going on in my own constituency it is certainly correct. A grant of £2,000 has been set aside from the Relief Schemes Vote for the provision of a waterworks scheme in Mountrath in the County of Leix. Nothing whatever appears in the contract which would go to show that the contractor would get preference because of the fact that he was willing to give preference to men who had served in the National Army. The tender was accepted and the contractor's foreman proceeded to the spot to select from amongst the unemployed in the area the most suitable men to carry on this work. He selected four men in the first instance. The local manager of the employment exchange discovered this and prevented him giving employment to these four men. The four men selected were the four most suitable men who had families dependent upon them and some of them were in receipt of home help. The exchange manager acting on instructions from the Government refused to allow the contractor to have these men start on the job and he selected three other men with one ex-National Army man originally selected. Out of the four selected by the manager three were married ex-National Army men and one a single ex-Army man. In that particular area on the 11th April there were 144 men out of work. Out of the 144 there were ten married men with service in the National Army. There were six single men with service in the National Army. There were 36 married men with dependents and 92 single men with or without dependents.

Under the existing regulations the manager of the Labour Exchange is bound—and apparently the contractor has to carry out his orders—to give first preference to married men who have served in the National Army. That disposes of ten of the thirty jobs likely to be available. The next class of people to get preference are single men who served in the National Army, one for one with married civilians with dependents. In other words, in that area six single men who served in the National Army will be taken on with six married civilians with dependents. That absorbs twenty-two of the thirty men that will be employed. Out of the remainder only eight married men, with a large number of dependents, will get employment. The inclusion of the six single men, because they served in the National Army, in accordance with the regulations, deprives six married men with large families from getting work on the job. That is the case I make, and the case that the local ratepayers will make against the existing regulation which has been enforced in that area by the Ministry. I will quote another case of a different type. A grant was made by the Minister for Local Government for carrying out certain public works in the Limerick City Corporation area. I will read an extract from a resolution that was passed recently by the Limerick Trades Council arising out of the situation created there by the operation of this regulation:

There is a stipulation in both contracts, that preference be given to ex-members of the National Army. Not more than 40 men will be engaged on both jobs, and as there are over 100 married ex-National Army men on the live register at the Employment Exchange, it follows that both schemes are confined to ex-National Army men, and no civilian will be sent by the Employment Exchange to work on these jobs.

Some of the men who will get employment on that job have served in the National Army for a long time, and it is quite possible that some of the married civilians who will be deprived of jobs on the work may have been unemployed for the last six or seven years. There lies the disadvantage and the unfairness of this regulation in the Limerick area. These are two quite different cases, and I quote them to make the case in favour of the withdrawal or the modification of the existing regulation.

I was surprised when the President, answering on behalf of the Minister for Finance, stated to-day that the Minister had no figures. If he asks the Minister for Industry and Commerce he will give the figures as he gave the figures relating to the people registered as unemployed. Out of that total he could give the number that served in the National Army. If he asks the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to find out the number that had got work as a result of that preferential treatment I am certain the Minister would be able to give the figure, as well as figures showing the extent to which the regulation has operated to the disadvantage of the married man with dependents. If he asks the Minister for Agriculture he will be able to furnish figures so far as it affects the Forestry Branch, while the Minister for Fisheries can also give information to show that the regulation is operating in the same way. The figures are available. If not they can be discovered, and they will prove conclusively that this regulation has operated to the disadvantage of married civilians. That is why I say that the existing regulation will have to be withdrawn or modified.

Mr. Derrig

I desire to associate myself with Deputy de Valera and Deputy Davin in making a protest against the present penalisation of the unemployed. Deputy Davin to a large extent has concentrated attention on the amount of public money that has been absorbed by members of the Free State Army. We are aware of the fact that a great many of these are drawing pensions. I do not know if cases actually occurred, but it has been alleged in this House that ex-members of the Army who are in receipt of Military Service Pensions get preferential treatment at the expense of unemployed people. If we take the case of the town of Carrick-on-Suir, to which Deputy de Valera has referred, we find that before Christmas the conditions there were so terrible, and the unemployed suffered so acutely, that they marched to a meeting of the local council. It will be remembered that on the eve of Christmas a very sad heading appeared in the Dublin Press calling attention to the dreadful state of the people in that town. The council was asked to get in touch with the Government to see whether portion of the unemployment grant could not be made available to help the starving people before and during Christmas. As Deputy de Valera asked, what has happened? In that small town, which is undoubtedly declining, which has no great industry to support it, and which by reason of the condition of the surrounding farmers cannot look forward to any great prosperity, the people, in order to try to solve the local unemployment problem, put up the astonishing sum of £9,000, according to the information we have received, to enable a local scheme of employment to be set on foot. The Government gave £2,000. There you have a case where the ratepayers in Carrick-on-Suir, faced with a particularly dreadful situation, imposed a levy of £9,000 upon themselves in order to try to ameliorate the situation. The Government steps in without giving the representatives of the ratepayers or those who are putting up most of the money an opportunity of putting up a case for the unemployed, or even of saying: "Here are the circumstances in our town. Why do you not take cognizance of them and why do you not relax your penal clause?" The Government takes no cognizance of that in Carrick-on-Suir or in any other town. It sends down instructions to the manager of the local unemployment exchange and to the engineer in charge of the works. Is that a fair way to treat a starving population, and a large number of heads of families who are set aside while preference is given, not only to the ex-National Army men in the locality, who may or may not have dependents, but, as I know has happened in other cases, preference is actually given to outsiders because they were ex-members of the Army against those who have lived in a district all their lives? Is that state of affairs going to bring about harmonious feelings in Carrick-on-Suir or in other towns? I think if the Government showed practical statesmanship and a little wisdom they would set about modifying an attitude which has aroused the deepest resentment, not alone in Dun Laoghaire, Mountrath and Carrick-on-Suir, but in other towns and villages.

Deputy Davin called attention to the amount of money that has been spent. Our position in this House is that we have granted a large sum of money this year, £300,000, to be expended in the relief of unemployment. By what law or by what authority, by what principle of Christianity or justice or fair play are the Government now deciding that in this £300,000 that we granted in relief of unemployment no cognisance is going to be taken of large numbers of people who should be first entitled to it? What on earth is the Christianity or what is the morality or what is the humanitarianism of the Government that thought of applying these conditions? We have a state of affairs in the country where very severe depression exists and where people must be relieved and special relief works must be set up to relieve the situation, and at the same time we have the Government arbitrarily deciding that those who are perhaps best entitled to the benefit of that expenditure on relief should be excluded. Does any sane person, does any ordinary person believe that at this hour of the day in the 20th century you can go down to the small towns of this country and spend the people's money, spend the taxpayer's money, and spend it purely on a political basis?

As if it were not bad enough to spend the unemployment grant in that way, we have, as Deputy MacEntee pointed out, other examples of this extraordinary partisanship and this extraordinary preference seven years after the civil war has ended. We have cases of officials, doctors and of various other persons, appointed to public positions, said to be appointed on merit and by reason of the fact that they have the best qualifications. What has actually happened? They have got preference because they spent a few months or years in the Army though perhaps they had no service before that, though perhaps if it were left to themselves they would have preferred to look for these positions simply on the ground of their own qualifications. I know there are large numbers of ex-National Army men who have not benefited from this penal clause which the Government have sought to enforce for their benefit. A large number of them have not found employment and they realise that it would be much better if they had to take their place as ordinary men seeking positions.

They realise that in a number of areas where grave unemployment exists, where large numbers of people have been drawing home assistance for years, where people have been keeping body and soul together with the greatest difficulty, where after years of unemployment they are hardly able to work if they got the chance—these ex-members of the National Army, in a lot of cases decent men, realise that it would be much better for them and that they would have a much better chance of fair play in the community if they were put on exactly the same basis as everybody else. If there is any distinction to be made let us make the only distinction that ought to be made; let it be the distinction that Deputy de Valera has suggested, a distinction that, I am sure, would meet with the approbation of every ex-member of the National Army who is at present an unemployed man. That is, where public money is being spent, whether it is the ratepayers' or the taxpayers' money, it ought to be left in the hands of the local authorities, who are best acquainted with the situation in their area or vicinity, and who know how the families of the unemployed are situated. If there is to be any distinction let it be the sole distinction of giving a preference to the man who has dependents who are expected to live on what he can earn.

Mr. Anthony

A great deal of hardship has been caused, particularly amongst what is described as the unskilled or labouring classes, in this country owing to the operation of this system of preferences. I agree that it is a good principle to reward men who have given services to the country in her time of need. But, as suggested by Deputy Derrig and others, I think that some water has flown under the bridges of the Liffey in a period of eight or nine years, and it is about time that this preferential treatment should be ended. I think some less objectionable method should be devised to compensate or help ex-National Army men rather than that of putting them in a position of preference or putting them into antagonism with their fellow-countrymen all through the Saorstát.

I know of no other system which has produced so much resentment amongst the ordinary people of this country as this preferential treatment of ex-National Army men. Much has been said about married men with wives and families, but there are many others in this country who have dependents, too. There are, for instance, many single men who have to support widowed mothers, and possibly one or two brothers or sisters, and individuals of that unfortunate class are crushed between the upper and nether millstone. Possibly they never get a look in at all in the matter of any employment that is going. This attitude is one that should be deplored by every right-thinking Irishman. It is, in my view and in the view of many supporters of this Government, establishing a new privileged class in the country. It is a means of accentuating and perpetuating those old feuds that a careful and proper Government should seek to have removed as far as they can remove them. I have had many complaints from all over Cork city and county with regard to this preferential treatment. As I have said, many people who have come to me are thick and thin supporters of the present Government and they strongly object to this setting up of what I have described as a new privileged class in this country.

I feel in this matter—possibly many may take exception to my feelings— very strongly. I do not care personally and I do not think any decent Irishman should care whether a man is an ex-member of the National Army or an ex-member of the Irish Republican Army or an ex-member of the British Army provided he is an Irishman and a good citizen. I would not differentiate even against ex-British Army men provided they are good Irishmen and good citizens. All these classes of people of whom I have spoken—the ex-National Army men, the ex-I.R.A. men and ex-members of the British Army—have contributed directly or indirectly to the National Exchequer. Why are they denied the rights of citizenship and the right to work? Why are they denied the right to partake in any work which the State is undertaking or to which the State is in any way contributing by way of relief grant or through any other measure of financial assistance? I have found many cases, some of them synonymous with those which Deputy Davin has mentioned, where married men with dependents and single men with dependents have applied for work under one or other of these schemes and where they have been turned down in favour of ex-National Army men. Deputy Davin has gone to some pains to show how public moneys have already been expended and where preference has been given to the ex-National Army men. Deputy Davin does not deprecate the services rendered by the National Army and neither do I, but I want to emphasise this, that neither do I deprecate the services rendered to the community by other people ready and willing to work who have never been in any Army at all.

If this policy is to be pursued, what may the common or garden citizen expect when the Fianna Fáil Party comes into power? It may be that they in turn will give preference in 90 per cent. of the jobs vacant to the members of the invisible Army that we hear so much about. I want the Government to face up to facts. Suppose Deputy de Valera's Government is succeeded by some other Government still more extreme, then we may have the position in this country where Government money may be expended on somebody only who has shot somebody else. Let us be quite fair in this matter. I hope in God it will never come to pass, but it may be that some leader of a revolutionary party in this country may suggest at some time that nobody should get a position or get employment where Government money is expended unless he is somebody who has shot a Civic Guard. Let us be quite logical in this matter. It may appear farfetched and, perhaps, ridiculous, but that possibility is there.

I suggest that the Government are making a stick to break their own backs. There should be no preferential treatment for any man in this country, and every man who is a good citizen whether ex-I.R.A. or ex-National Army or ex-British soldier, should get fair treatment. I think it is time after the lapse of eight or nine years for the Government to drop this policy of setting up a new privileged class in this country, setting one man against another. They are doing this by the perpetuation of this policy. I do hope that the President, when replying, will give us some indication that he is not as unbending as he pretends to be in this matter. I say that because notwithstanding the fact that he is a bit vocal in matters of this character from time to time, I feel that he is not without some humanity at least and that he does not in his heart believe in the setting up of a new privileged class and antagonising one Irishman against another.

Mr. Lemass

I think it well that it should be made quite clear, for the benefit of members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, that the grievance referred to by Deputy de Valera and Deputy Davin is not the experience of supporters of the Fianna Fáil Party alone, or of the supporters of the Labour Party alone. It is a grievance that is felt just as keenly by many ardent supporters of Cumann na nGaedheal, and by many people who do not support any Party, and in a very great degree by those who were members of the British forces during the Great War and who are now resident in this country. The policy of the Government as enunciated by the President, is that the small section that associated itself with the Cumann na nGaedheal Party during a particular period should be given special privileges over all others. One could understand that policy if it was presented to the Dáil and to the country in a truthful and honest manner, but that has not been done. There is probably no one in the Dáil who more frequently stands up and appeals for the non-party consideration of important questions than the President of the Executive Council. There is no one who more often deplores the introduction of politics into any issue, but this is sheer politics, and nothing else. If the President came here and said "We won the struggle. We beat the devil out of you," to use his own historic phrase, "and we are going to have all the fruits of victory, all the spoils of office, everything that we can lay our hands on, for our own immediate following," then he would be taking a stand which would be at least an understandable and certainly an honest one. That is not what he does. He hides his purpose behind the cloak of hypocrisy. He pre tends to be animated by feelings of altruism, by a desire to do the right thing by the whole nation, to have no party interests at all, no sectional affiliations. There is probably no more practiced and finished hypocrite in the Dáil than the President of the Executive Council, and this policy of securing all the spoils for one section is not presented honestly, but under this hypocritical cloak which the President loves to wrap round himself.

It should be clear also that the policy applies not merely to work financed out of relief Votes but to employment of every kind which the Government control or can influence. It applies to employment in the Post Office. This was mentioned here in the debate on the Estimate. It applies to employment given through the instrumentality of the Land Commission. It applies to every post and every job where the Government can make it operate.

Mr. Davin

The Board of Works.

Mr. Lemass

The Board of Works is another example. There is no member of this Dáil, no matter what Party he belongs to, who cannot, of his own knowledge, recount cases of hardship in consequence of this policy. There is no member of this Dáil who can say that the people affected by this policy are not his constituents or his supporters, and the question which the Dáil must ask itself is whether it is wise national policy that one small section of the community should be specially privileged in this way. The policy of the Government is to secure everything that can be secured for that one small section, and to leave the rest, those who vote against them and those who do not vote at all, to scramble for what is left. Is that a policy that is going to help us to repair the damage done in the civil war period and to make progress possible here?

The President

That was a great joke.

Mr. Lemass

As far as the President is concerned, any damage that was done has long ago been repaired.

The President

It will take the Deputy a long time to repair the damage that was done by his Party.

Mr. Lemass

The President's desire, and the desire of those associated with him, is to keep old animosities alive, because it suits their Party interests. He never loses an opportunity of helping to revive some of the hate, the jealousy and the bitterness that was created during the civil war period. That policy suits his Party interest, and it is in pursuance of that policy that these regulations are made. It is an attempt to introduce into this country what does operate in some places and what is known as the spoil system. Will Deputies contemplate the situation that would exist here if other Parties were to declare in favour of the same system? If each Government that came into office meant a complete clearing out of the Civil Service, police officials and others, and their substitution by the adherents of that Government——

The President

Is that alleged against the Government?

Mr. Lemass

It is alleged against this Government that they are definitely out, as these regulations prove, to secure every post, and every form of employment that they control, for their own adherents. They are trying to establish that principle all over the country. They are the only Party in the country that adhere to it. The spoil system cannot operate unless all Parties agree. There is only one Party to stand for it, that is the Cumann na nGaedheal Party.

It is because I feel that the great majority of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party do not realise that that is the aim and intention of the Executive Council, that I hope in some way, even if we do not succeed in securing a reversal of that policy by a vote on this Estimate, we will, at least, get something going inside the ranks of that Party which will, in due course, exercise an influence upon the Executive Council, and secure from them a realisation that they are going the wrong way in this matter.

Mr. McGilligan

After the pacific speech to which we have listened I hate to intervene; but I would like to point out to Deputy Lemass, when he begins to speak of the spoil system, that there were certain people whose cases had been considered, and who had been dismissed from service with the Government by reason of clear-cut complicity with an armed movement against the State, and afterwards they were returned to their employment. The Deputy has, probably, conveniently forgotten about that. This matter is not going to be dealt with, as far as I am concerned, on a Party basis. I do not recognise any question of Party division as far as ex-National Army men are concerned. They can be labelled as they stand. There is no division made, as far as the Employment Exchange managers are concerned, as between a person's present political affiliations when it comes to that manager sending forward names and when applications are made to him.

Mr. Lemass

That is ignoring realities.

Mr. McGilligan

If the Deputy means that ex-National Army men may be, and naturally, considered to be supporters of this Party——

Mr. Lemass

Exactly.

Mr. McGilligan

Very well, let us take it at that. There has not been revealed in this House any disposition, except on the part of the Deputy, to deprive ex-National Army men, particularly married men, of a particular preference at a particular time. The complaint, as phrased by Deputies Davin and Anthony, is that the period over which that preference has extended has now lasted too long, and the preference, in so far as it operates to the advantage of single ex-National Army men in opposition to civilians— married men—is unfair. As far as the period is concerned. I have spoken already on this matter at least three times, and on each occasion I stated that such a regulation ought to be regarded as one only for a temporary period. I have this also to say to the House on this occasion, that each time previously when there was a debate on this matter I was driven to investigate the circumstances, and I found that although there might have been regulations, the carrying out of those regulations was a different matter, and on each occasion I made up my mind, as I stated here recently, that the regulations had not been put into force and ex-National Army men, the people who did serve in a way that deserved commendation and material support from the people of this country, have not got the support to which they were entitled. I said that preference ought to exist for some period longer. I say that even now, although we are so many years removed from the civil war.

Mr. Davin

Does that apply to men who joined the National Army at the conclusion of or after the civil war?

Mr. McGilligan

There is a distinction made, and the distinction is increasing, between the people who went in for a temporary period afterwards and those who were in the Army during the civil war. I do not think they have any great claim.

Mr. Davin

They are getting it.

Mr. McGilligan

I do not think they are. It is, of course, a matter for investigation of individual cases. At any rate, I do not think these people are entitled to the same treatment as the people who were in the Army in the dangerous time when the State was being attacked.

Mr. Anthony

Is the Minister quite sure that those men are not getting it?

Mr. McGilligan

I repeat that these people are not entitled to the same treatment. As a general rule, that preference was not given in their cases, and it should not be given; but a new situation may arise hereafter which may result in preference being given, say, in connection with an Army reserve. However, that again is a different situation, and it is not the situation with which we are now dealing. Deputy Davin asked something about a modification of the rule. I would like to see the rule operate strictly and rigidly for a bit, so that one could say, "These people have got what they merited and, having given them something in return, we can now say we are finished with them." It has not operated to any extent, however. I have heard debates here on occasions in which, if the rule were to have been applied, extraordinary cases of hardship could be revealed. The matter was raised here on one occasion by Deputy Redmond in regard to Waterford, and it has been raised in communications to me in regard to Limerick and Carrick-on-Suir. In all cases in which exceptional hardship could be revealed through the application of this rule there has been a modification made.

In the case of Waterford, Deputy Redmond gave an instance quite publicly and openly with regard to the extraordinarily large number of British ex-servicemen in that area, and how they were going to be penalised in an extraordinary way through the application of this rule. The rule was relaxed at once. In the case of Limerick, there was much more reluctance about relaxing it, because, as far as my investigation goes, the ex-National Army men there have got no chance up to date. On a good case being made on any occasion the rule was invariably modified. Similarly, with regard to Carrick-on-Suir, when a case was made the rule was modified. What case was made to-night? Of course Deputy Lemass will have his friends in any of these matters, but the main feature is that they always avoid details. There is always that sort of rule amongst them; they never will commit themselves to detail. It is apparently a dangerous thing, and if the Deputy were so to commit himself he might be caught out. Deputy Davin gives one case. I do not know of a job in Mountrath for which there was an application made to the Exchange in relation to thirty vacancies. I do know in regard to a particular piece of work going on in Mountrath that an application was made to the branch manager for nine men.

Mr. Davin

I said that the maximum number of jobs available was thirty.

Mr. McGilligan

The Deputy introduced that into the context of a speech dealing with hardship caused by the application of this general rule. I want to show how the rule works out.

Mr. Davin

My object was to show how it operates.

Mr. McGilligan

The branch manager was told that there were nine vacancies and he sent on nine people. There was one single man; that was the one exception. The rest were married men. Out of the remaining eight there were five ex-National Army men and three civilians. For the nine posts notified to the manager eight of the men sent were married men, and one was a single man.

Mr. Davin

I have had telephone information on the matter. The civilians the Minister has referred to were the key men whom the contractor was entitled to bring in for his own purposes from an outside area.

Mr. McGilligan

I wonder is that correct?

Mr. Davin

It is the Minister's duty to find out.

Mr. McGilligan

In regard to that particular job we knew that the contractor filled three vacancies himself. Are these the three men to whom the Deputy refers—the three key men? We knew there were twelve jobs going, and an application was made to the exchange manager for nine men.

Mr. Davin

Is the engineer included in the twelve?

Mr. McGilligan

I think not. There were nine vacancies and these were filled by eight married men and one single man. Of the eight married men, five were ex-National Army men and three civilians. That is the extent of the preference, as far as I know it, in the particular case to which the Deputy has referred. It is the only case that we have got about which I consider there might be a case of hardship made. Take the Limerick case. What is the position there? That there are more ex-National Army men married and having dependents than there are posts available for. In that case I have no hesitation in saying that ex-National Army men who are married have a right to any posts there are.

Mr. Davin

Married men without dependents?

Mr. McGilligan

I say with dependents. On that, I take the point that was made by Deputy Anthony, and say that you cannot consider this question according to these two terms: married and single. A tremendous number of single men——

Mr. D. Bourke

I can say that ex-National Army men get special preference in Limerick from the Labour Exchange there.

Mr. McGilligan

If I could get that statement confirmed I would give promotion to the Exchange manager in Limerick.

Mr. MacEntee

What about the spoil system now?

Mr. McGilligan

These two classes of people who served this country, not party——

Mr. Lemass

Served your Party.

Mr. McGilligan

If they served this Party it was serving the country at that time.

Mr. Aiken

I would like, before the Minister finishes——

Mr. McGilligan

I am not nearly finished yet.

Mr. Aiken

——to put one question to him. What statutory right is there to enforce these regulations?

Mr. McGilligan

My objection to Deputy Aiken's questions is that they never have any illumination about them. What are the facts with regard to road work? That ex-National Army men get, I think, about one-twelfth of whatever vacancies there are. The majority of those vacancies given to ex-National Army men go to married men. I assert that if there is going to be a distinction between married and single men there ought again to be, first, a distinction made between an ex-National Army man who is married and a civilian who is married. On these debates, when I come to make an investigation, I always find that although the rule may be there it is not in practice made effective. On each occasion on which we make an examination of the position we get the feeling that we are bound in conscience to these people to give them a certain preference over a certain period. If that preference has not been given for any period, then we feel inclined to keep it on until these people have got what their merits deserve. We think that the rule ought not to last for ever.

Mr. Davin

Does the Minister believe that the rule should be rigidly applied?

Mr. McGilligan

It is not rigidly applied.

Mr. Davin

I say that it is being applied in a rigid form.

Mr. McGilligan

The position there is that we are in conflict over the facts. It is a question of getting details of some particular fact. The Deputy gave the Mountrath case. The discussion on that particular matter can be continued on other Estimates to come before the Dáil. I gave my statement on that case as I have had it put to me from the Exchange.

An Ceann Comhairle

Surely we are finished with that matter on this Estimate?

Mr. McGilligan

Deputy Davin asked me if I would allow the regulations to be continued without modification. As I have said, I do not find that it is made effective in practice. In the particular cases in which it was shown that it had caused hardship it has been modified. The Deputy was present at the debate that took place on the Waterford case, and he knows well that in that case there was a modification of the rule made. In cases where definite hardship is shown, the rule will be modified. On the whole, I make the case that something is owed to ex-National Army men over a particular period. Although it has been the rule to give the ex-National Army man the preference indicated, he has not in fact benefited in practice. I think the time has not yet come for the abandonment of the rule. In fact, I think that after this debate there should be a more rigid application of the rule in order to make up for the defects that have been revealed.

Mr. Aiken

What statutory right has the Government to enforce any such regulation?

Mr. McGilligan

If the Deputy has any doubt about that he has his remedy.

Mr. Lemass

Will the Minister answer the question?

Mr. Aiken

He has not any answer to give.

Mr. McGilligan

I have already answered it: all the answer that I am going to give.

Mr. Lemass

Better answer it.

Mr. Davin

Will the Minister say what grounds he has for insisting upon a local contractor accepting men who are suitable or unsuitable when this condition is not laid down in the contract? I agree that in the Limerick case it was specifically put into the contract, but in every case that has come under my own notice it is not a condition of the contract, and therefore I say it should not be enforced.

Mr. McGilligan

And therefore the contractor can refuse to accept it. He has his statutory rights.

Mr. Davin

I am glad to hear that.

Mr. Aiken

Deputy Lemass called attention to the policy of the Government. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has let slip portion of the reason for this preference when he said that he hoped it would operate for a bit, and that then they would be finished with these people. Of the ex-National Army men who did the fighting for the Government there are 2,000 unemployed at the moment. A good number of them are married. The Government has not provided any employment for them, nor for the other 20,000 people who are idle and for whom they fought the war.

Mr. Davin

The Deputy can make that figure 50,000.

Mr. Aiken

I think the number of registered unemployed is 20,000.

Mr. P. Hogan (Clare):

The figure is 26,000 odd.

Mr. Aiken

These ex-National Army men who are being given a preference on road work have not a whole lot to thank the Government for if they are only given a couple of weeks' work during the year. These men are simply being led on with a carrot held before their noses with the hope that at some time they will get a preference and get what they supposed they were fighting for. The men who were on the top got a preference all right. The men who got the big pensions got the big jobs afterwards. Single men who were getting big pay in the Army, and afterwards got big pensions, got the big jobs in preference to married ex-National Army men or to anybody else. Take the case of Deputy Dr. O'Higgins. He was paid pretty well while he was in the Army. He had £1,400 a year in his job, which was not a very arduous or dangerous one. A lot of the married ex-National Army men who are now unemployed, and who can only get a couple of weeks' work in the year, have very little to be thankful for to the Government when they see men like Deputy Dr. O'Higgins, who had £1,400 a year in the Army, getting £3,000 cash down on leaving, £360 a year as a Deputy, and £1,000 a year as County Medical Officer of Health in the County of Meath. Put his case against the couple of weeks' work that is given during the year at 25/- or 27/- a week to poor married or single ex-National Army men.

We have asked both the President and the Minister for Industry and Commerce what statutory right there is for the preference that is operating at present. There has been no answer given to our question. We are told, I suppose, to go to the courts. Of course the Government do not want any statutory right to give that. They do not want any legal sanction to do what might suit them politically for the moment. The attitude of the President and his Ministry has always been "We are the State. Anything that is good for our political Party is good for the State and anything that is not good for our political Party is bad for the State." I hope one thing any way will result from this, that the ex-National Army men who did the fighting are not going to be fooled by a couple of weeks' work during the year.

Deputy Anthony asked where was this thing going to end. If this Government, he asked, was thrown out, was the next Government going to give a preference to their people? Evidently Deputy Anthony does not want that done. He is definitely foregoing his right, at any time in the future, to give a preference to the men who took up wooden guns with him in Cork. We are glad to hear that.

Mr. Davin

What did the Deputy do as Minister for Defence?

Mr. Aiken

Deputy de Valera, the leader of the Fianna Fáil Party, stated our case to-night—that we want in this country in the future a preference to be given to people according to their need. We have stated our policy on several occasions regarding the provision of work and of a decent maintenance for the people of the country. We believe that the country is capable of producing all that is required to give a decent livelihood both to married and single ex-National Army men, married and single ex-British Army men, and married and single ex-I.R.A. men. As Deputy de Valera has said, our policy is to give preference to married men with families and to people with dependents in the provision of work while the present situation exists, that there is not sufficient work and maintenance available for all. I hope the Dáil, as a whole, will condemn as vigorously as it can the policy of the Government in giving this preference to ex-National Army men. Since the Government have come into office they have made no definite effort to provide work or maintenance for all the people in this country, and that applies to their attitude to the ex-National Army men whom they fooled for a while into fighting for them. The preference given was in reality to the inner clique, and in the long run poor people who were unemployed and who joined the National Army for a living for a while got badly let down, and certainly when the Fianna Fáil Party comes into office we are going to see that there is fair treatment all along the line, and that people who are badly off and have dependents shall be given preference no matter what political view they held in the past.

Mr. Corry

In dealing with this matter, the Minister for Industry and Commerce stated that they were looking after the men who fought. I have here one of a large number of letters from the town of Cobh which I have received in the past few months. There is a large number of unemployed in that town, and this letter will give the House an idea how matters stand:

"I wish to appeal to you and to put before you the fact that I and several others with large helpless families, who are in a destitute way, have from time to time applied for employment at the local Exchange. Where such employment exists as at present in the cleaning of the tanks at Haulbowline, we are turned down simply because we are not ex-National Army men."

That is only one of many such letters. The Minister said they were giving preferential treatment to those who fought. I will give him a case of one family in Cobh who fought, and who fought without being paid. They were a family of four in number who joined the Irish Volunteers in 1914 and who saw the thing through to the finish. Deputy Hennessy knows the case as well as I do. One member of that family was captured in the battle of Clonmult and executed in Cork Military Barracks, and he is buried in Cork Jail. A second boy was captured the night afterwards in his own home, taken out and put up against a fence to be shot by Cameron Highlanders who were in a drunken condition. He succeeded in escaping wounded, had to run nearly five miles, and spent all night out in the frost, so that his health was seriously injured. Two other brothers served until the Truce. One of them was three years unemployed and had to go to America. The other brother is at home idle. He has three in family. He got a few months' work in Ford's, and since then is unemployed.

He cannot get any work in the town of Cobh, so that the one left out of these four brothers who fought for Ireland cannot get work in the town of Cobh while there are any ex-National Army men unemployed in that town. Is that what the Executive Council stand for? Is that their position? We are told that there are between 23,000 and 26,000 persons on the register of unemployed, and 2,000 ex-National Army men. I made inquiries as to the numbers employed at Haulbowline on the tanks, and I am told that the ratio between ex-National Army men and married men is fifty-fifty, or half and half. I doubt if it is even that. The letter which I have read does not look like that. I ask is that fair play? I alluded a while ago to the boy who was wounded, and that boy died last year in Cobh Hospital, into which he was sent by the South Cork Board of Public Assistance. That is the treatment meted out to those who fought for Ireland without pay.

My first introduction into public life happened to be in connection with National Army men. It was in the form of an appeal made to me by large numbers of unemployed civilians with families living around my district who could not get an hour's work even breaking stones on the road. I happened at the time to be co-opted a member of the County Council. I saw the Minister's order in connection with this. I went down to see what could be done. I found that single men were being brought out from the slums and lanes of Cork five or six miles to Glanmire and Riverstown and put into employment, while standing by on the roads looking on at these single men doing the work were married men with families who were themselves living along the roadside. We succeeded at the time in getting rid of some of the burden, but as soon as the Minister found the burden lightened, acting on instructions, stricter orders were sent to the County Council officials and borough surveyors. It is time that was ended. It is unfair to have single men without dependents employed before married men with families.

I am sure when the Minister for Finance is looking for his taxes on tea and sugar he does not say to the married man: "Because you are unemployed we will not ask you to pay, and we will not charge you any tax." The taxes out of which these ex-National Army men are paid are drawn from those paid by the unfortunate married men and their families. On a pair of boots which they buy for their children, if it is a foreign pair, they have to pay a tax in order to find work for the unemployed ex-National Army men, while they themselves have to go hungry. I move to report progress.

The Dáil went out of Committee.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again to-morrow (Friday).

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until Friday at 10.30 a.m.