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me out of the difficulty in which I found myself, and I certainly think that the time has long since gone when this out-of-date regulation should be wiped out.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.