I move:
"That the Central Fund Bill, 1929, be read a Second Time."
Central Fund Bill, 1929—Second Stage.
I understand that it is the general wish that the discussion on this Bill should not range over the whole field of Government policy and activity, but should be concentrated upon the activities of particular Departments or special points of policy. In accordance with that opinion I intend to devote my remarks exclusively to the administration—a better description I think would be the mal-administration—of the Department of Justice with special reference to the recent activities of members of the Detective Division of the police force in and around the city and neighbourhood of Dublin. During the last two or three weeks a large number of individuals have been arrested and re-arrested, held for periods in police stations and imprisoned, and some of them assaulted by members of the Civic Guard, in whose custody they were. All of them were threatened, and all of them released without at any time having been charged with any offence or brought to trial in a public court. No official explanation or apology has been offered by any Minister for this activity. An attempt made to get from the Minister for Justice information as to the identity of persons arrested, met with a straight, downright refusal. The only information which we could secure or have been able to secure concerning the motives behind the sudden outburst of activity was the statements which appeared in the daily Press, and which, I admit, appear to have been inspired by some governmental authority, and also the references to various matters which were made by various Ministers in election speeches at meetings held in support of a particular candidate. On Monday, 4th March, the President, at a meeting in the Rotunda, said: "A deliberate and organised attack has been launched against the foundations of ordered society." He referred to the murder of a young man named Armstrong, which had occurred a fortnight previously, and the attempted murder of a man named White, which had taken place two months before he made his statement. He denounced and deplored them, and rightly so.
It seems to us to be a very extraordinary thing that the President of the Executive Council should, as Deputy de Valera stated, have kept his denunciation of these crimes in cold storage, and kept the police force inactive and quiescent until the election campaign was in progress. By doing so he has, in my opinion, left himself fairly open to a charge of being concerned less with the safety of individual citizens and the punishment of criminals than with the return of the candidate nominated in the North City by-election by the party of which he is a member. It is the opinion, not merely of members of this party, but of many responsible citizens of every party, that the machinery of the Department of Justice has been operated to make political propaganda for one party in this State, and they hold that the responsible Minister, who either directed its use in that manner or permitted it to be used, has placed himself in a position which very few decent men would like to occupy.
In the same speech to which I have already referred the President said: "If you are to have government you must have law. If you are to have law you must have instruments of law. You must have means of finding out whether a person charged with an offence is guilty or not." He will not, however, put his theory into practice or, at least, he has not done so during the last few weeks. He, the Government and the Department of Justice have been engaged on a campaign to make law and justice the prerogative of the adherents of one party only. Men accused of any crime, no matter how odious it may be, have the right to be faced by their accusers and to be tried in open court. The Government have ignored and abolished that right with respect to the men they are now harassing. We do not know who these men are. We have heard that an individual here and an individual there has been amongst those arrested, but no information has been given to us of an authoritative nature to indicate who exactly are the victims of this campaign. We do not know what they are suspected of. Does the Government know? Does the Minister for Justice know? I do not think so. I believe that they just instructed their police force to show activity, to arrest somebody, to do anything so that they could scare voters by such a campaign into giving their candidate support which they could not get on their policy.
Certain information has been placed in my hands concerning a number of these arrests. There is operating in Dublin City an omnibus company, amongst the directors of which are some men who took an active part against the Government forces during the Civil War period. During that period they incurred the personal enmity of certain individuals now holding high and responsible positions in the police force. Those high and responsible officials of the police force have been, in my opinion, using the power conferred on them as police officers in order to put that particular company out of business. The method they have adopted is the arrest of the inspectors, the conductors and the drivers of its buses, frequently, two or three times a day, stopping buses on the street and taking the drivers and the conductors off them, driving them to prison and releasing them a few hours later. It is quite obvious that these methods will be effective in destroying the business of that company if they are not stopped. I have just secured information concerning the number of times during the last few weeks that certain employees of this company have been interfered with in that way. I select three cases as being indicative of them all. The first is that of an inspector. He was arrested on February 17, while on duty, held for two hours and released. He was re-arrested on February 21, and released at 8 p.m. the following day. He was again arrested on March 4, at 8.30, and released at the same hour the following day. He was re-arrested on March 6, while on duty, and released on March 7. He was again arrested on March 11, while on duty, at 12.30, and released at 6.30 on the same day. During the entire period while he was in captivity he was never charged with any crime whatsoever. The second is the case of a conductor in the same company. He was arrested on February 17, detained for two hours and then released. He was again arrested on February 21, and released on the 22nd. He was re-arrested on March 4, and released next day. He was re-arrested again, I understand, this morning.
Another conductor in the same company was arrested on March 7, released on March 8, re-arrested on March 8, released on March 9, and re-arrested on March 11. Other employees of the same company have been interfered with in the same way. It is the opinion of directors of the company, and of all others who know the facts, and it is certainly my conviction, that the activities of the police force in that connection are not designed to assist in the suppression of crime, but to victimise the political opponents of the Government and to vent the spleen of individual police officers who are abusing the powers conferred on them by the State. Numbers of other young men have been repeatedly arrested in the same way, and on each occasion on which they were released, members of the detective division informed them—and these are the words used in every case: "We will arrest you every time we see you on the streets of Dublin." I want to know from the Minister for Justice, the President, or any member of the Executive Council, what right a member of the police force has to make a threat of that kind to people against whom they have no charge? Are these detectives acting on their own responsibility? Have they, in fact, got out of the control of the Minister for Justice, or are they working in accordance with some definite plan and definite instructions issued from the Minister's Department? If these men are criminals—as I say, as regards the majority I do not know even who they are—and if the Government have any evidence to prove them so, why do they not bring them into court and give them a chance of answering any charge that may be brought against them? Are they even suspected of any crime? I am not yet aware that it is the law of this State that it is a crime to be suspected by a police officer, but even if we could be informed that there were reasonable grounds for suspicion that these men were criminals, then we could understand the motives in part, at any rate, of the Government's action. I do strongly suspect, however, that these men who are being treated in this manner are just opponents of the Government—men who are being branded as criminals in order to make political capital for the Government's Party candidate at a by-election.
I noticed in the evening Press last night an advertisement issued on behalf of the candidate, and there was published in that advertisement a rather fantastic extract from a document alleged to have been found on one of these persons arrested. I want the Minister for Justice to tell us how that document got into the hands of the election agent of the Cumann na nGaedheal candidate in the North City. That document was never officially published. Are we to understand that the officials of Cumann na nGaedheal have the right to go down to police headquarters, examine the files there, and extract from the files any document which they think they can use for the benefit of their Party? If that document was not given to the members of Cumann na nGaedheal in that way, how was it given? Is there some member of the police force who is surreptitiously extracting these documents from the police files and giving them to Cumann na nGaedheal headquarters? The extract that I saw was so fantastic that it was possibly written in the Cumann na nGaedheal headquarters. But whether that is so or not, we have it definitely stated on behalf of the Government candidate that such a document was found on a person arrested on January 30 last. We want to know from somebody who is in a position to tell us how that document got into his hands? If this document was found on some person, why was that person not charged concerning it? The Government will, no doubt, avoid all these straight questions, if they intervene in this debate at all, and they will tell us in very vehement language that crime must be suppressed and criminals brought to justice. We agree. They will be talking to the converted if they talk in that strain. Murder is, of course, a crime, and there is no Party in this State which possesses the same desire to see murderers, all murderers, brought to justice as the Fianna Fáil Party.
All murderers, with emphasis on the "all."
If the Government held, and always had held, the same attitude to crime which Fianna Fáil holds, there would be much less of it in the country to-day. What is their attitude? Last week in the Dáil a member of the Labour Party. Deputy Hogan, put down a question to the Minister for Justice with respect to certain alleged assaults on individuals by members of the Civic Guard in Co. Clare. He asked: "If I furnish the Minister for Justice with affidavits made before a Commissioner for Oaths in which these men allege that they have been assaulted, will the Minister, with a view to maintaining the status and reputation of the detective division, have an investigation carried out?" and the Minister replied: "I am quite weary of these groundless charges against the Civic Guard." I think the Minister's answer to Deputy Hogan is indicative of his attitude to similar questions on all occasions. Many murders were committed during the civil war period. I do not want to refer to them for the purpose of raising old issues, but we have to face the fact that to-day quite a number of those who were engaged in the commission of these murders are, I believe, holding responsible positions in the police force. The Minister for Agriculture said in a speech recently that Fianna Fáil were afraid of criminals. I make the assertion that the Government are afraid of the criminals whom they were forced to place in responsible positions in the Civic Guards and in the detective division, and that that is, in fact, the true explanation of the Minister's attitude whenever an inquiry is asked for into some particularly brutal piece of conduct in which these individuals engage. It will be remembered that early in 1927 members of the Civic Guard in Co. Waterford broke loose and committed a number of assaults upon well-known Republicans in various parts of the county. I understand that an inquiry was held and that certain well-known detectives were censured, and some cashiered I think—I am not sure if that is correct, but I have been informed that it is so—as a result of the inquiry. Some months later the Minister's predecessor was murdered.
Deputies can connect these two facts if they like. It is remarkable, however, that the Minister for Justice scorns and repudiates and refuses any further demands for inquiries into Civic Guards' conduct. I wonder is he determined that he will not meet with the same fate as his predecessor. When the late Mr. Kevin O'Higgins was murdered a number of well-known Republicans were arrested, charged with the crime, brought into court, not one shred of evidence produced against them, and they were released. No one has been arrested since. The purpose which the Government had in taking that line of action is, I think, obvious. In the public mind they fastened responsibility for that crime upon Republicans in general. But it is an extraordinary thing that, despite the fact that we have been paying 1½ million pounds every year since to maintain a police force, they have been unable to link up anyone definitely with it, and apparently at present all activity in that connection has stopped.
The Minister made a statement some time ago to the effect that Fianna Fáil had never at any time expressed the wish that the murderers of the late Minister for Justice should be brought to justice. I personally believe very strongly that those responsible for that crime were men who were at one time in Government pay, and I would very much like to see them on trial, if for no other reason than to throw a strong searchlight upon the real significance of the Government's boasted courage in the face of criminal activities. The Minister will ask why those people throughout the country who have been assaulted by members of the Civic Guard do not take action in the courts to recover damages. He knows as well as I do the main reason why they do not take such action. In the first place, they are mainly poor men, and it is our experience that whenever action is taken against a Civic Guard officer the case is appealed from court to court, up and down, until it is quite obvious that only somebody with a strong bank balance could ever hope to get a final decision. In other cases, he knows that the reason they do not take such actions is because of fear of the consequences to themselves selves. No matter what damages they get they will have to go back and live in the same area, in which the same Civic Guard, or some other Civic Guard, will still exercise the same measure of power over their lives and fortunes. In the majority of cases, of course, it is due to the fact that the individuals have an outlook not expressed in this House, and would not, no matter how strong their claim, bring an action in the courts established by the Free State Government. But it is an extraordinary thing that in every case I know of, in Kerry, Tipperary and other centres, in which such actions were taken, the judges and juries awarded damages and costs against the Civic Guard officers. I want to know if, in any such case, where a judge and jury gave such a verdict, the Civic Guard officer concerned was made to account for the action which he took.
There was a case in Newport, Co. Tipperary, which was referred to here some time ago. On Christmas Eve members of the Civic Guard, having drunk not wisely but too well, embarked upon a general rampage through the town and assaulted quite a number of individuals. A number of those individuals took action against the officers of the Civic Guards concerned. In some cases the actions were dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. In other cases in the Circuit Court they got decrees for various amounts against Civic Guard officers. There were appeals up to the higher court. Some of the cases were returned for retrial and went down again to the Circuit Court. The case is, in fact, still in the public courts, and has been in progress for the last twelve months. The fact remains that, when the facts were placed before a jury, the jury on two occasions gave a verdict against the members of the Civic Guard. I want to know why the responsible officer, who was a Superintendent of the Civic Guard, and who has thus been convicted by a jury of having carried out an illegal assault upon a civilian, was not dismissed from the force; why he was left in that responsible position, and continues to exercise power and authority over the lives and fortunes of our people.
Other cases have come to our notice where members of the Civic Guard have engaged in the political victimisation of Republicans. Licensed traders have been approached and told that if certain individuals employed by them were not dismissed they would lose their licence. Other employers have been told that certain men were bad characters and should not be employed. But the only thing they had against their characters was that they were political opponents of the Government.
This speech I am making will not, I know, help to secure that co-operation between all parties which is, I think, necessary for the solution of the various economic and political problems in front of our people, but the responsibility for that, however, is with the Government. They went into the North Dublin by-election campaign with a muck-rake, and they cannot complain now if there is a stench which offends their nostrils. Let anyone read the speech of the Minister for Agriculture delivered last Monday. In that speech, he sneers and derides Padraic O Maille, who had been at one time Vice-Chairman of this House, because he is not filled with hate against the individuals who wounded him when they were on opposite sides in the civil war in 1922.
took the Chair.
Padraic O Maille was big enough to let no personal animosity guide or direct his conduct. It would be a good thing for this country if some more men in it were as big as Padraic O Maille. I suggest to the Minister for Agriculture, and I suggest to other Ministers, that they should take some lessons in elementary Christianity before they come into public and speak in that manner again. I wonder did the President take into consideration the effect his sensational speech is likely to have upon business credit and trade in general. If the situation existing is one-half or one-quarter as serious as he represented it to be, does he not think that the place to make that speech was not at an election meeting, and was not from a party platform, but was here in this House? If he thinks that is so, but still deliberately chose to make it in such a place and in such a manner as would help the candidate of his party, regardless of the effect upon the general welfare of the community, then both he and the party that stands for these tactics are deserving of repudiation by all decent self-respecting Irishmen.
If they wanted to ensure the co-operation of the citizens of this country, irrespective of their party affiliations, in the suppression of crime, the place to ask for it was not in the heat of an election campaign off a party platform. The President knows that, but he does not want anything at all except to maintain his Government in office and to win a panic vote at a by-election. That is the whole thing. This activity on the part of the police, these sensational speeches, have all been devised for that purpose and for that purpose only. The welfare of the community, the maintenance of law and order, or the preservation of open trial were never considered. Quite the reverse. As long as Cumann na nGaedheal are able to secure the return of their candidate, let all the fundamental rights of the citizens, the welfare of the business community, all attempts to wipe out the bitterness of the past and to secure a better spirit in the future, be thrown to the winds. I hope, now that the by-election is almost over, the Minister for Justice will cease these forms of activity. There is no longer any necessity for them. There is no immediate prospect of a by-election in the next couple of months. If the Government has evidence against any men that would prove they are criminals let them arrest them, and let a judge and jury decide. If you have no evidence, however, then leave them alone until you have. That is their right. In taking that right from them, you are abusing the power the people gave you.
The speech made by the Deputy who has just sat down is a speech that, unfortunately, in this place, I cannot categorise as I should like to. The Deputy complained, I think, primarily that certain people had been arrested. He suggested that that was done to assist in the by-election. He gave the dates of the arrest of certain individuals. I think his first date was the 17th February, next the 21st, then the 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 11th March. Now, on the 20th February a man named Armstrong was brutally murdered. He was murdered, as the Deputy is morally certain, as the result of an organisation, and he was murdered because he gave evidence in court. There was an organisation behind that. I do not know what information the Minister for Justice may have. I am morally certain that that organisation has its messengers going about the city. I have reason to believe, independent of police knowledge, that part of the means of communication is by employees of 'bus companies, railway companies, etc.
Our experience in the last seven years is that amongst those people who blandly call themselves "Republicans," there is an entire failure to realise what I may call the ethical side of citizenship. We have seen it in the Fianna Fáil Party within the last year. I refer to an occasion of 28th March, when I asked Deputies on the other side should they at any time get any information that would be useful to get the murderers of Kevin O'Higgins would they put that information at the disposal of the police? What was the reaction of that Party? Deputy Little said it was absurd to ask such a thing; it would bring odium upon them. Deputy Cooney said it would mean becoming police informers. Deputy Fahy implied that he recognised that it was a duty on them to give such information.
In a public speech last Sunday, I said that as far as I could judge it seemed to me that the attitude of Deputy Little and Deputy Cooney was the attitude approved by the other side, and that the attitude of Deputy Fahy was not the attitude approved of. It may be that the proprietors of a certain bus company are supporters of the party opposite. My observations in the last seven years have been that amongst those people who believe they have a right to keep their tongues silent when by speaking they could bring a murderer to justice—and if Deputy Cooney and Deputy Little speak for the Opposition, then that party is amongst such people—there has been a complete failure to recognise the duty that rests upon them as citizens and as human beings subject to the moral law. Such people are prone to give employment by preference to men associated with illegal organisations. I do not know, but I think that, seeing that an attempt was made to murder a juryman a couple of months ago, those dates—17th February, 21st February, March 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 11th, etc.—formed a period during which, in a country where things are as they are in this country, it was very natural that there should be a number of arrests.
took the Chair.
The Deputy says: "If you have a charge and have evidence against people bring them into the court and let them face the charge." The Deputy knows as well as I know, and every Deputy opposite knows perfectly well that when you have an organisation working one can have a moral certainty that certain people have been associated with criminal acts without being able to prove it. For instance, suppose Deputy Lemass's legitimate successor in the office of Minister for Defence, which I believe he occupied until the end of November, 1925, utilising the authority that Deputy Lemass claimed when he occupied that office up to 1925, the power of life and death, decides that Mr. A or Mr. B should be executed. He wishes to convey that to Mr. Aiken's successor as Chief of Staff, who happens to be at the other side of the city. He may send a message verbally or in writing. Suppose the police, knowing there is an organisation operating to murder citizens in this State, have very good reasons to believe that messages of such a nature are being carried, are they to stand by and let these things occur and say, "We must not do anything, we must not raise our hands until we have complete evidence that can convict a man in the court"? I said here years ago that the well-being of the State is the supreme law. The State exists primarily and fundamentally for the maintenance of social order. Murder is the greatest crime against social order. Everybody in this House knows perfectly well that when an organisation is operating it is possible to know that people are morally implicated, morally parties to crime. They have their messengers and agents going about. The Deputies say these people must not be touched. Murder may happen, but the Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party, if they had information, would not dream of giving it. Still it is the right of the gentle murderer or his friend to be untouched until such moment as the police have, by a miracle, got complete evidence against them that will convict them in the court.
Do the police know that they are members of the organisation?
I think they possibly do. I do not know what case you are speaking of.
Why are they not charged with that?
The Deputy knows, as we all know. We have all been in a like position.
Hear, hear! You lead the way yourself.
Everyone knows that at a given point a truce was made on July 11th, 1921. The Treaty was signed on December 6th, 1921. That was the turning point. It was a change from alien government here to a native government.
Was that the first change? Was it then only that there was a change?
For practical purposes, yes. What I would like to know from the Deputy is this: The Deputy right into 1925, and calling himself President of the Irish Republic, had his Ministers who were calling themselves the Government. They had their staff and their army, meaning that they claimed powers of life and death. I would like to know at what moment that power they claimed, ceased to exist in people outside this Dáil, at what moment was it that the authority of this Dáil became legitimate and ceased to be illegitimate? I quite agree that there was a period of civil war. Then there was a "down arms" in April, 1923. I understand the situation changed after that moment, but after that moment the arms were not surrendered. People claimed to be a Government. That is, they claimed a power over life and death. They were fired out of that position. Other people have taken that place. What is the moral line of the Deputies opposite? They say they do not condone murder. I do not say they do. I have no doubt that they very much regret those two recent murders as being politically inconvenient for them.
Is that your contention?
I think so.
You regard them as politically convenient.
Let us give the Minister as good a hearing as Deputy Lemass has got. This debate cannot continue unless one side gets as good a hearing as the other. There is no other basis. Otherwise it cannot be continued.
I assure you I thought I was saying something almost complimentary to the other side. I am quite prepared to agree that the Deputies do not condone—
Because they were inconvenient.
I have no doubt that was a contributory factor.
I want to know if this is going to be permitted.
I withdraw that. I want to get to my point.
I wish to hear Deputy de Valera's point of order.
If we are to get the same opportunity as the Minister for Defence is getting we are quite prepared for it, but what I want to know is, if this debate is going to be continued as you suggested, is it in order for a Minister to say that we regret certain deeds simply because they were politically inconvenient for us?
Did the Minister for Defence say that?
Yes.
I did not exactly say that. I did not say they condemned them "simply because," but I cannot help thinking that that element of inconvenience may have given an additional objection. I am quite ready to believe that the Deputies opposite are far from condoning murder but I want more. The Party opposite are the second largest Party in the country. They are almost asking us to believe that they are to be the next Government. A little over a year ago I tried to get from the Party opposite—not for Party purposes but because I think it is very important to get it in this State and I would be very glad if they came out and said it—two things, one, not merely that they condemned murder. They are the second largest Party and they believe that they are going to be the next Government. Two Deputies got up and in reply to a question of mine said that even though they knew exactly who was the murderer of Mr. O'Higgins—to quote a phrase I used before, "the nine ways of sharing the guilt of another's sin," which I was taught as a child—they would share in the guilt of that sin by silence and concealment. I tried to give them an opportunity on Sunday last but the papers did not report me fully. I said I was anxious for the Party opposite to go out and tell me that they condemned murder. It is the duty of every citizen but pre-eminently the duty of those who say they are the largest Party and are to be the Government next, to do all that in them lies to bring the murderers to justice and if the Deputies can do that and give an assurance to this House and through this House to the country that the whole force that the Party commands and the whole information it may have that may be useful for bringing murderers to justice, are to be placed at the disposal of the State nobody will be more glad than I.
Will you give the same guarantee?
The Deputy will have to guarantee me his silence.
I am anxious for the Party opposite to make its position clear. If they get up and state that clearly I will not question it. I would like also another thing. I would like them to say exactly how it was and what the circumstances were which made it a perfectly moral and legitimate thing for Deputy de Valera to call himself President, Deputy Lemass to call himself Minister for Defence, and Deputy Aiken to call himself the Chief of Staff, and to have a body of men under them calling themselves an army. I would like them, not for my own sake, but for the country's sake, to show us how they removed from themselves what I considered to be a moral handicap. I would like them to show how it was that the authority they claimed then was right then, but not right for the other people outside now who claim it. I would like them to say when it was and how it happened. Apparently, it did not happen in April, 1923. It was some time after that. It was some time, presumably, earlier than November, 1925. Even if they have to admit that they were doing a considerable amount of humbug when they were posturing in these positions, I would like to see it clear. Even in the speech of Deputy Lemass here, he suggested clearly that the late Minister for Justice was murdered by people who had been in the Government service, and that the murder was a result of justice being meted out to them in the Government service. I do not believe that Deputy Lemass believes that. He knows perfectly well that there is a moral certainty amongst the whole people of this country that the late Minister for Justice was murdered by people who belonged to an illegal organisation, that he was murdered because he was Minister for Justice in this State, and as Minister for Justice he had done his duty while he occupied that position. Is there anyone but Deputy Lemass who does not know that that is the fact?
I do not know.
The Minister for Defence himself does not know.
I say I am morally certain of it. I do not believe any Deputy in this House doubts it.
I do.
Mr. Boland
So do I.
Ministers of your own Party doubt it.
Not one of them.
We want to get to a position where the police do not require extraordinary powers and do not require to use them. How are we going to get to it? An attempt was made to murder a man named Harling by a would-be murderer named Coughlan. Obviously, this was an occasion for the co-operation of every Party, but here in the Dáil allegations were made and there was a judicial inquiry into the matter. Before that judicial inquiry had brought in its findings, the Party opposite had a Fianna Fáil club called the Seán Coughlan Club. The results of the inquiry came out showing that this man called Coughlan was a would-be murderer, but, without waiting for the result of the judicial inquiry, the Party opposite called one of their clubs after the would-be murderer. The Deputy has suggested that nobody more than the people opposite deprecate things that have been happening recently. There is an organ called "The Nation." It is edited by Seán T. O'Kelly, a Fianna Fáil Deputy. It is actually, if not nominally, the official organ of the Party opposite. There was an attempt to murder Mr. White. As a result of that, we gave protection to certain jurymen. On the 20th February Mr. Armstrong was murdered, and in that paper, in effect the official organ of the Party opposite, and edited by a member of the Party opposite, of the 23rd February, three days after the murder of Armstrong, what do we read: "Prisoners notes are usually gloomy reading, but we are glad this week to be able to give some cheering items." Then it goes on to say that the jurymen who were misguided and cowardly enough to sentence the gunman Healy on the 3rd December have to be protected by police. That is the cheering item. Jurymen who swore to bring in a finding they considered proper and who failed to commit perjury were misguided and cowardly. We are told that it is cheering news to know that they have to be pro tected by the police, and that that protection is injuring them in earning their livelihood.
I would like to know if that statement was made in a letter to the editor?
No, sir; it is under the column headed "Prisoner's Notes" which appear more or less weekly.
Is it signed by the person who wrote it?
It is signed by a woman.
The Deputy was correct then in suggesting that it was a letter.
It was not a letter; it was an ordinary feature in the paper.
Mr. Boland
Signed by the writer.
The letter should not have been inserted.
The paper is open for the insertion of a letter by anybody.
Does the Deputy suggest that the editor of a paper, as a responsible man, has the right to put in his organ, to circulate in this country, a document calling upon the people to rejoice that jurymen have to be protected against murderers, and that jurymen who refuse to commit perjury at the behest of the gun-bully are to be injured in earning their livelihood because they have to have police protection? Are the Deputies opposite running away from it? Are they prepared to say that it should not have been published? Does the Fianna Fáil Party disown that document and the paper that published it?
Does the Minister disown the advertisement appearing in this morning's paper, regarding the North Dublin election?
I do not know what the Deputy is referring to. Do they disown this organ which is practically the official organ of the Fianna Fáil Party, rejoicing that as a result of the murder of one juryman and the attempted murder of another, jurymen are to be injured in earning their livelihood because they have to be protected against men who claim in 1929 the powers that the Party opposite claimed up to the end of 1925? Then Deputy Lemass told us that there is no Party in this country in a supererogatory position and that nobody more than they condemned murder. I suggest the publication of that paragraph, in that paper, edited by that man, associated with that Party, associates everybody associated with that publication, with the murder of Armstrong and the attempted murder of White. Then we are told that we are trying to make Party capital out of this.
Here is a very serious situation in this country. Here is a great party, the second greatest party in the country, handicapped morally because other people are only claiming the authority they claimed previously, and they have not told us up to the moment in what way the authority they claimed ceased to come to their successors in the organisation that they were associated with. Let us have it clearly once and for all. They told us that they condemned murder but if they know who the murderers are, they are not going to tell anybody. I am not wanting to put this in the form of charges. I am most sincerely anxious that the whole Fianna Fáil Party should get up, like Deputy Fahy, and tell us that they intend, in office or out of office, to do all that in them lies to bring these murderers and members of these associations to justice. I do not believe that the speech of Deputy Lemass complaining that people associated with or suspected of being associated with these things, are being arrested and kept for two hours takes in anybody in this House. We all know about that; we belonged to organisations. We went about and took good care that there would be as little evidence as possible against us, unless we were actually caught in the act. Everybody knows that there is this organisation, and that members of it are about the town. The job of the police is to try to get these people, and it is the job of the Deputies in this House to do nothing to handicap them in doing that work.
With regard to the men the police are harassing, men who are in an organisation plotting to commit murder in this country cannot be too harassed. I am not satisfied that there is personal enmity on the part of police who are in high and responsible positions against the proprietors of a bus company. Is the Deputy opposite prepared to get up and assure us that nobody employed by this bus company, whoever he may be, is in any way associated with any illegal organisation? Can he get up and assure us of that?
Can you say they are?
I do not say they are, but I am prepared to believe, seeing that the police have arrested certain men, that there is very good ground for believing that some of them are.
At one time we held that a man was innocent until he was proved guilty.
This is more important than any cliché or anything else that the Deputy learned from British Liberalism in the nineteenth century. Are they suspected? he asks. I am prepared to believe that they are, and I am prepared to believe that there is reasonable ground for suspecting them.
Why are they arrested every second day?
I would rather keep them in, and not let them out on the intervening day.
Why do you let them out, then? It will not frighten them if you keep them in, because they are used to it.
"There is no Party in this State that possesses the same desire to bring all murderers to justice." Well, the Deputy says that to-day. Why did he not get up and say it on the 28th March last when I put the thing clearly before the House? The Minister for Industry and Commerce came back on it again and again, but we could not get anything from the opposite benches. All we did get was a statement from Deputy Cooney and Deputy Little that to do such a thing would make them informers. If the Deputies opposite ever become a Government would they, in cases of murder, give the police information?
Will the Minister say the same thing as I say?
Will the Minister give us the names of the gun bullies who are all over the country at the present time?
There was a necessity to have an amnesty resolution in 1923 which covered all that. Apart from that, the Deputy can rest assured that I stand for bringing every murderer to justice, and, as an ordinary citizen, apart from being a member of the Government, if I had any information that I thought would be useful to the police in bringing murderers to justice I would give it to them. I would feel it my duty as a human being, bound by the moral law, to give that information. The Deputies opposite seem to think that the Fianna Fáil Party can make or unmake the eternal laws just as it suits their convenience. I cannot say what I would like to say about the suggestion that the late Minister for Justice was murdered by members of the police forces. I am satisfied that no Deputy in this House believes any such thing.
I, for one, have heard it suggested in practically every place where the matter was spoken of. It has been commonly suggested.
Will the Minister assure us there was an attempt to find the guilty people in political spheres other than the Fianna Fáil and the Republican Parties? Was there any attempt made to find out who murdered the late Minister for Justice amongst the Cumann na nGaedheal people or the police, or was all the attention confined to those people who are Republicans? I would like a straight answer to that question.
I presume——
Do not presume; answer the question.
The police went out on every track that they considered likely to lead them to the murderers. I can quite believe that the people associated with that murder are most anxious to put it on to the police. Deputy de Valera has now told us that everyone he met who discussed the matter thought so.
Was any attempt made to discover the murderers in circles other than Republican circles? I would like a straight answer to that question.
Every possible attempt was made to find them. If the police had confined themselves entirely to Republican circles they would have saved themselves extra trouble and would be more likely to get their men. Much time was wasted in looking up other circles for them.
Why did they not find the murderers of Noel Lemass?
Does time make any difference in murder? That question has been brought up. Is there going to be a time limit put to it?
Only in case of war where you bring in an amnesty. There was an amnesty brought in in 1923.
That is the moral law.
I do not believe the Minister or anyone on those benches opposite. In connection with the murder of the late Minister for Justice no attempt was made to find the murderers in circles other than Republican circles. I say that as a responsible Deputy.
I do not believe it.
I have very good reason for believing it.
I am satisfied that I and my colleagues gave every possible encouragement to get after the murderers, whoever they were.
I do not believe a word of it. I know it is not a fact.
I know it is a fact.
I know it is not.
The Minister should be allowed to continue the debate.
Deputy Lemass is much concerned that employers were told that Republicans in their service were bad characters. But the Deputy's organ rejoices that employers are almost driven to discharge employees who did their duty as jurymen, because the murder gang have made it necessary to protect them. The Deputy talks about co-operation between all Parties. I know that Deputies opposite do not believe me, but I can assure those Deputies that I have time and again come on to those things because I feel it is necessary in the interests of social order. Where social order is concerned, all other matters are only secondary in governmental and State affairs. The all-important thing is the maintenance of social law and order. On that fundamental point all decent citizens and all lawabiding people can be united. I think it is important that the Party opposite should make it perfectly clear that far from wanting to curry support from the enemies of the State, they stand for cutting down rigidly any attempt to overthrow social order here, and that they stand for bringing to justice every enemy of social order in this country whether he be a murderer, the associate of murderers, or merely associated with an illegal organisation.
Deputy Lemass, filled with Christian charity, is horrified that the Minister for Agriculture referred to what might be called an obscene statement by a Mr. O'Maille. I think the Minister for Agriculture was not exactly reported in the Press. I on Sunday, and he on Monday, referred to Mr. O'Maille's pride in shaking hands with the man who murdered Seán Hales. I went further, and said that no doubt when Fianna Fáil came into power they would make him a judge, and when the murderer of Kevin O'Higgins would be brought before him, tears of appreciation would come into his eyes as he came from the Bench to ask permission to clutch the murderer's hands, and he would shake those hands, saying that he was sure the man thought he was doing right when he committed the murder. No doubt, when the murderer of Mr. Armstrong would be brought before him he would come down again and ask permission to shake hands with the murderer, and with tears in his eyes, he would say he was sure the murderer thought he was right in what he did.
Here we have the Party opposite saying they are to be a Government at any minute, and as far as murderers are concerned, they are prepared to shake hands with them. provided that the gentlemen who committed the murders thought they they were doing right. How can one maintain social order in a country where you have that hypocritical humbug preached under the cloak of Christian charity?
Does or does not the Minister believe in the amnesty he referred to?
I do, quite, but I would not be a party to any amnesty that sentenced me to be proud when I shook hands with the murderer of my friends.
The Minister is quite confident that the Minister for Agriculture was misreported. But the "Independent" and the other papers are so favourable to us that we were quite accurately reported.
I know that happened in my own case, anyway, and I understand it happened in the case of Mr. Hogan's reference to Mr. O'Maille and the murderer of Seán Hales. I do not pretend to be a lawyer, but as the Deputy refers to the amnesty, I presume that but for the amnesty Mr. O'Maille would be at this moment in jail as an accessory after the fact. Mr. O'Maille is getting the benefit of the amnesty all right.
He would not be alone.
He would have a few more with him.
Deputy Lemass said it would make more for stability if the President's statement was made not in an election campaign, but in the Dáil. Personally I feel the election campaign was the more appropriate place.
Sure, for the purpose.
I most carefully dealt with these matters on Sunday last. People in elections are electing Governments. The Government exists for the maintenance of social order. The people's first duty is to consider the matter of social order. If the two parties are agreed on that, then we can give the subsidiary matter, such as whole-hog protection or protective tariffs, a secondary place.
On the 28th March last, I asked the Deputies opposite to give information. They said "No." Three days after the murder of Mr. Armstrong, the semi-official organ of the party opposite comes out with the "good news" that jurymen have to be protected. They make assertions with regard to jurors who refuse to commit perjury. There was the case of a man who was at one time associated with the Deputies opposite. When jurors refuse to commit perjury and refuse to find a man innocent when he is guilty, they say they are misguided and cowardly. It seems to me that the party opposite has not come out clearly on the question of the maintenance of social order. They say that they, less than anybody, condone murder, and they condemn the murder of Kevin O'Higgins. From a party that says it is going to be the Government we need more than that. We need them not to be morally handicapped, and we need them to be able to get up and say, "We will put this thing down." When a man says, "You did this in 1923," or anything like that, they can say, "We were wrong, then," or "Owing to circumstances, what was right then is not right any longer. The authority we had then is not possessed by you. We are going to treat all cases of assassination by you as murder, and you are going to pay the penalty for it." I feel that this thing must be met clearly, and as long as we have this element in the country, the murder organisation will continue. The Deputy casts doubt on the documents that are found on prisoners when arrested. The Deputy can rest assured that horrifying statements are found on people arrested.
And handed to Cumann na nGaedheal.
Handed to the Cumann na nGaedheal election agent.
Before the people are tried.
I know nothing about that. We have the murder gang about, and we have the Party opposite who have not, as far as I know, made it clear that they are going to give any information that they have in their possession to bring murderers to justice and to put down plots that are existing against the State. Once we have the position clear from them, I think it will be good not only for them and for us but for the whole country. I ask them, before they demand that the police be very careful to make sure that they have complete evidence against persons before they interrogate them or examine them, to make it clear that we must have a condition in this country that would justify such a line. I do not think that you have that condition in any country in which you have an association plotting against the State. These nice phrases that Deputy Lemass rolls off like a Mr. Gladstone do not really apply. The first condition is that life be safeguarded and social order maintained. If there is a moral certainty amongst the police that a man is in any way associated with murder or associated with crime I feel that the police ought to arrest him. But I do think the position will be better when we have the Party opposite saying, as we say to the murder gang, that any information they have is going to be used to bring those men to the gallows when they commit murder. They do not need to say that here. They can do it in some public place. Let them tell us exactly when the position changed. It was not in 1923 when the order to "down arms" was given. How are we to have proper stability when only about one week ago, Deputy O'Kelly got up and referred to me as the "so-called Minister for Defence"? I do not mind that personally, but it seems to me that that remark meant that he challenged the authority of this Government. It meant that every time this Government sanctions the execution of a criminal, that as we have not the authority of a Government, we are thereby committing murder.
How does Deputy Lemass explain that remark of Deputy O'Kelly? Does Deputy O'Kelly recognise or does he not recognise the authority of this Dáil? I am only Minister for Defence because I was made so by the Dáil. The Deputy said "so-called Minister for Defence." What did that remark mean? The only thing I understand from it is that he denies the authority of the Government set up by the Dáil. If he denies that, it is conceivable, especially reading what I read in his paper, that he recognises that the power of life and death lies in some body of people outside the Dáil. Therefore, when some ordinary criminal is executed, we are murderers. When somebody outside the Dáil, belonging to some organisation that Deputy O'Kelly thinks has authority that we do not possess, assassinates a man, then that is merely an execution. If they murder a juryman that is an execution. I would like to have these things cleared up.
I feel that Deputy O'Kelly's remarks last week were dangerous remarks for this State and for the people of this State. I think it is time that the Deputies opposite would make clear what is meant when Deputy O'Kelly speaks of a "so-called Minister for Defence." I would like if they would make it clear what is meant when he says the Free State is dying and that it cannot die too quickly for him. This Deputy publishes in his paper a statement about "cowardly and misguided jurymen," one of whom was almost murdered. As long as there is an organisation outside operating for murder the police must not halt in getting after it in any way they think feasible. Remember that the position is made worse when we have a Party like Fianna Fáil in this House, I will not say flirting with the people outside, but which has failed so far to make clear what is their attitude towards the authority of the Government in the Dáil and towards the people outside who claim the power of life and death. I am ready to believe Deputy Lemass that when they gave the "down arms" order in 1923 they considered all that had ended, and it was only amateur theatricals when Deputy de Valera called himself President of the Republic and when we had talk about the Army, the Chief of Staff, the Minister for Defence, and the rest of it.
We are asked to state clearly what our attitude towards this House is. I have on more than one occasion said exactly what our attitude was. I still hold that our right to be regarded as the legitimate Government of this country is faulty, that this House itself is faulty. You have secured a de facto position. Very well. There must be some body in charge to keep order in the community and by virtue of your de facto position you are the only people who are in a position to do it. But as to whether you have come by that position legitimately or not, I say you have not come by that position legitimately. You brought off a coup d'état in the summer of 1922. We heard the President of the Executive Council talking about the independence of the Judiciary the other day. Here I see members of the Cabinet of the Government of the Republic but when a matter was brought before the Supreme Court of the Republic—a Habeas Corpus action—what was the result? The answer to that was to suppress the Republican Courts. You are in favour of the independence of the Judiciary when it suits your purpose, not otherwise. And if you are not getting the support from all sections of the community that is necessary for any Executive if it is going to dispense with a large police force, it is because there is a moral handicap in your case. We are all morally handicapped because of the circumstances in which the whole thing came about. The setting up of this State put a moral handicap on every one of us here. We came in here because we thought that a practical rule could be evolved in which order could be maintained; and we said that it was necessary to have some assembly in which the representatives of the people by a majority vote should be able to decide national policy. As we were not able to get a majority to meet outside this House, we had to come here if there was to be a majority at all of the people's representatives in any one assembly.
As far as I am concerned the only Constitution I give "that" for, the only thing that I think I am morally bound to obey in this House, is a majority vote, because you are all elected by the Irish people. As a practical rule, and not because there is anything sacred in it, I am prepared to accept majority rule as settling matters of national policy, and therefore as deciding who it is that shall be in charge of order. When the change came about, the Ministers on the opposite side were very anxious to try and keep, and have been anxious in the past to try and keep, this House from going back on the circumstances of 1921. They think that their propaganda— they have had two or three years of it, to say the least—has had such an effect on the minds of the people, and that the public memory is so short, that their view of it is going to hold. Their view does not hold with us. Some of us know the circumstances quite well.
We know that when the Four Courts were attacked, they were attacked despite the Truce, that the ordinary means that could have been taken to avert that disaster—the bringing of the House together— were not taken, and that we were involved in civil war. I for one, when the flag of the Republic was run up against an Executive that was bringing off a coup d'état, stood by the flag of the Republic, and I will do it again. As long as there was a hope of maintaining that Republic, either by force against those who were bringing off that coup d'état or afterwards, as long as there was an opportunity of getting the people of this country to vote again for the Republic, I stood for it.
My proposition that the representatives of the people should come in here and unify control so that we would have one Government and one Army was defeated, and for that reason I resigned. Those who continued on in that organisation which we have left can claim exactly the same continuity that we claimed up to 1925. They can do it. I differed with them because, as I have said, I had to recognise there was some body who would have to keep order, that there was a de facto position created, and that for the good of the community generally, and with the hope of restarting, it was necessary to try and get a unified assembly.
When I was listening to what I certainly felt was hypocrisy on the part of the Minister for Defence, I could not help thinking of the Gospel scene when the hypocrites asked that a certain crime should be punished. The answer, I think, was, "Let those without sin cast the first stone." When you have an Executive in this country whose hands will be clean, and who will not be murderers themselves, then you will have the Irish people standing up for them. The Ministers opposite laugh. They come here and they taunt us because we say that we will not pursue and use every means in our power to bring to justice those who have been exasperated by their action. They are simply repeating what every British Minister who had to do with Ireland in the past repeated. There is not a single statement made by one of them that cannot be paralleled from Irish history during the 19th century.
The Ministers talk about murder and the moral law, and apparently the Minister for Defence thinks that if an amnesty is passed here that it is going to abrogate the moral law. That is not my opinion in any case. Those Ministers who talk and expect that the whole of the citizens here should be outraged in their sentiments the moment that they speak of murder forget that they themselves, before they put to death Erskine Childers, executed four young boys at Kilmainham.
Here is what was said by the Minister for Justice on the occasion on which he said that this was going to be done. He said:
If this were merely an average case, it may perhaps have been because it was better at first to take the average case, to take cases which had nothing particular, no particular facts about them to distinguish them from the cases of thousands all over the country who are leading the nation to death. If you took as your first case some man who was outstandingly active or outstandingly wicked in his activities, the unfortunate dupes through the country might say, "Oh, he was killed because he was a leader," or "he was killed because he was an Englishman," or "he was killed because he combined with others to commit——
I think "crime" is the word. Now this was the excuse——
Would the Deputy give the reference?
I will have the reference copied. That was on the occasion on which it was announced that there were four boys going to be executed in Kilmainham before Erskine Childers was executed. There was no execuse for putting these four boys to death except to pave the way for the execution of the man who had been blackened by propaganda and whom they wanted to get rid of. Shortly afterwards, in Mountjoy, four other men were taken out and put to death. If the killing of these four men on that morning was not murder, I do not know nor does anybody else know what murder is. When an Executive comes along whose hands are clean of murder, then perhaps you will get from the people general co-operation. But I doubt very much if the appeals that have been made by the Minister for Defence and others are going to have much weight with the people, or that the people will think that there is any sincerity behind them when they come from men who themselves are not in a position to throw the first stone.
Reference has already been made to the case in Clare. Perhaps before I come to that I should say that those who are the agents of the Ministry were not long learning their lesson. The example which the Ministry set was quickly taken up by their agents. We had in one week men who were taken out and blown up by a mine at Countess Bridge, Ballyseedy, Ballyhar, and near Cahirciveen. Not one of these men has ever been brought to justice. They were maintained and kept in their positions. They were openly defended by the Ministry, and there has never been any attempt by the Ministry to bring these people to justice. When we ask here of the Minister for Defence to protect the individual citizens against the outrages that are committed against them by the C.I.D., and when we ask him to use his power of discipline over them to keep them right, we are told that the ordinary civil proceedings are open to the individual citizen. I think it was Deputy Lemass who pointed out that you might as well say there is no redress, because we know full well, as we have pointed out, that these cases are appealed and appealed. They have no funds by which they could bring these people to justice, and they feel that if they were convicted in some way or other the Executive would protect or compensate them. The feeling generally is that the Executive are afraid, are absolutely afraid, of the tools they had in the past, and that they cannot exercise over them the powers of discipline that would be effective. If we are going to have here these questions of co-operation discussed, we will have to have them discussed in quite a different tone from that adopted by the Minister for Defence.
We are anxious to spare the country any further trouble. We came in here in order to assist in doing that. We have pointed out time after time that the way to do it is to remove any barriers that would prevent the representatives of all sections of the people coming here. It can be done. There is not a single member of this House who thinks for a moment there would be any difficulty about it, and you will achieve more in doing that in the securing of public order than you will with all your appeals and denunciations. You have achieved a certain de facto position, and the proper thing for you to do with those who do not agree that this State was established legitimately, and who believe that as a matter of fact there was a definite betrayal of everything that was aimed at from 1916 to 1922, is to give those people the opportunity of working, and without in any way forswearing their views, to get the Irish people as a whole again behind them. They have the right to it. You have no right to debar them from going to the Irish people and asking them to support the re-establishment, or if they so wish to put it, to support the continuance of the Republic.
They have the right to demand, if they are able to convert the Irish people into a majority in favour of the maintenance of the Republic or the re-establishment of the Republic as the de facto institution, that they should be given that opportunity. If you deny them that, if you are going to continue the methods that have been adopted of harassing them constantly, you are going to have repeated against you what was done against the British Government in the past. There is no use in your blinding yourselves to the fact that you are regarded here as simply continuing in another form British authority, that you are the agents of British authority in this country, and any other Executive that get into your position will have the same moral handicap, except they are able to get the acceptance of some common assembly.
The Deputy should make personal references in the third person. It is less exciting.
I meant them in the third person sense. The Executive have been trying to use force, and have been using it all the time. If they are going to meet force by force then they cannot expect the co-operation of citizens who wish that there should not be force. I know perfectly well that any Executive carrying on must have some final sanction. Surely the existence of that final sanction does not mean that it is to be used before common sense is used? One would imagine that the present Executive had never been anything but British Ministers. That is exactly the attitude they are taking up. They say, "Our position is quite different. We are the Irish people's Government," but if they are so certain of that why should they bring off a coup d'état? Why then do they not go in the ordinary way and establish it properly and get a proper vote on it? It was agreed that the register that had been in existence since 1921 was out of date, and instead of giving the opportunity for a proper register they again came along and said, "It is our policy to change and everybody else must change with us." Well, they found it very difficult to get certain people to change, and they are only thinking of force as the remedy for it. We say that force is not the remedy for it, and that there is no use whatever in appealing to anybody to help the present Executive unless the Executive take up a line which will be morally supported by the people as a whole.
I suppose it was in the nature of things that some day and that some time despite your valiant efforts to the contrary, A Chinn Comhairle, we would have a debate of this kind in the House. Perhaps it is as well that we should have it. Personally, as one who had nothing to do with these unhappy events which are being debated here to-day, and as the Chairman for the time being of a Party who were not involved in these unhappy events, I had made up my mind not to intervene at this stage of the debate and on this particular subject. There are other things of more interest to us and the people we speak for— matters of social concern which we had hoped to speak about on this Central Fund Bill—but I feel I would not be doing my duty as a representative in this House if I did not give my views on the points which have been raised in the rather extraordinary speech of the leader of the chief Opposition Party in this House. Before I go into that, I want to mention a few points with regard to the two main issues which were raised by the first two speakers.
There can be no question, there must be no question, that the very basis of social order in this country is the right to the jury system and the preservation of the jury system. Interference with that right, anything that would sap that system or hinder its proper working, is something that must be condemned by every right-thinking person, something that all right-thinking people must co-operate in putting down, and putting down as strongly as it is possible to put it down. Everyone of us stands for that, and is prepared to give the fullest co-operation with any Government or any party that will stand for putting down that. I want to make that quite plain. I want to know where we stand here. I want to know from the Leader of the chief Opposition Party, who may be the President of the Executive Council of this State in a very short time, and who might possibly look to receive support from our Party to put him into that position, where we stand? Have we a Government in this country? Who is the Government of this country if those people who have been voted in by the majority of this House are not the Government of the country? I do not agree with the policy of the present Government; I am in opposition to the present Government; but I am forced to recognise that while they are there they are the custodians of law and order in this country until we put somebody else in their place, and it is the duty of all right-thinking men to obey the laws while those laws are there. It is our duty to make the laws; it is our duty to see that, in so far as we can—we may not always be able to do it—the laws are equitable. But as responsible citizens it is also our duty, once the law is made, to obey that law and to do our best to see that it is obeyed until it is changed in this House. That is a fundamental principle that must be, I think, accepted by everybody—by any of us who has any respect for law.
Now, who is the Government of this country? Where are they if they are not the Party that is sitting there? If they are not, who is the legitimate Government of this State? Deputy de Valera made what to me sounded as an extraordinary statement when he said that those who now claim to be what I took him to mean the legitimate Government of the country are people who are outside this House, who are not represented in this House. That was the conclusion I drew from what he said —I may be wrong—but that was the clear inference when he said that they could claim the same continuity and authority as they themselves claimed when they were in that position, and we know what they claimed when they were in that position. And he has come in here, has taken part in the work of this Assembly, taken part in the making of laws for this Assembly, while he now says that this is not a legitimate Assembly, that the legitimate authority and Government of this country reside in some body outside this House. That to me is certainly a most extraordinary statement, and I think it is a statement that will not serve the interests of this country and will not serve the interests of the community as a whole. I thought, and I had hopes, that we were getting away from that. I was looking with confidence to the building up of political parties here who would be prepared to fight out their political differences in a constitutional way. No one will deny—I certainly will not deny, and I do not think that anyone denies—the right of any citizen in the State to go out on a public platform to-morrow and say that the proper form of government in this country ought to be a Republican form of government.
Might I ask Deputy O'Connell if he thinks you have a constitutional way of settlement as long as a section of the people are definitely debarred by a test oath from coming in here?
Let the Deputy apply that to himself.
I am applying it to the people who are in a different position.
Have we any guarantee that if we take away this test they would come in?
Try.
I am prepared, as the Deputy knows—I went into the Lobby with his Party—to get away from those tests. I do not want those tests; we never stood for those tests, and if the Deputy gets into office as President of the Executive Council in a Government which he declares and admits is a legitimate Government, I am prepared to help him in every way I can to get rid of these tests if I am here at the time. That is the attitude of this Party. But we must get back to fundamental principles. One cannot come here, take part in making laws, do everything that an Assembly like this ought to do, and at the same time say: "This is not the Government at all." We must have it either one way or the other. I said I had hoped that we were nearing the time when all this would be forgotten, when we would have got away from this, when we could meet here and discuss matters of great importance to the community, social matters such as have been discussed and very ably put forward from those benches and supported by us on practically all occasions. That is what the people want, in any case. The people are fed up with and sick of this kind of talk that goes on here on occasions of this kind. They do not want to go back to 1921; they do not want to know what happened in 1921; they want to forget it; it is the one thing in their history that they do not want to have raked up in their faces in this country or in other countries, and it will do them no good. It may not be, of course, right that that should be so, but it is so, and I believe that in saying that I am more truly voicing the views of the ordinary common people of the country than anybody is who says that the people are thinking, and continually thinking, of the things that happened in 1921 or 1922. And the reason why I think that Deputy de Valera was on the wrong track in the line that he took to-day rather than when he and his Party advocate social reforms, industrial development and the betterment of the country from that point of view, is this, that it encourages that attitude of mind out of which disrespect for the law grows and has grown, that attitude of mind which leads to the terrible things that he, no doubt, as much as we, is prepared to condemn.
But it is that attitude of mind that I object to, that statement by a responsible Deputy who may be head of the Government any day, that statement that there is no legitimate Government, and ipso facto, that any Government formed by this House will not be a legitimate Government—because it must mean that. If this body of individuals, elected by the members of this House, are not a legitimate Government, then no body of individuals elected by this House will be a legitimate Government; therefore they will have no right to enforce law and order, and therefore the men who stand up against them, break and abuse their laws, commit what we call a crime and what they say is a legitimate act, will have no respect for the law, and they will claim as their justification the statement that was made by the Deputy to-day. That is the thing that I see wrong about it, and I regret very sincerely that it should be so. But I think this is really not a Party matter; it is a matter that I think ought to be faced in a way other than a purely Party way. There were things done in 1921, 1922 and 1923—terrible things—and no one regrets them more than I do; perhaps no one protested more strongly against them than I did. But we want to forget them, and in the name of God let us forget them. There was one point that was raised to which I would like to refer. I thoroughly agreed with Deputy Lemass when he stated that the speech that the President made on a political platform in the Rotunda ought to have been made in this House, if it was necessary to make it. If the President found it necessary to make this statement and to give this information, here was the place to do so, not on a political platform, because it was a matter that concerned, not his own particular Party, but every Party in the House.
There is another matter to which I want to refer. Reference was made to an advertisement which appeared in the papers yesterday, and again I support the point made by Deputy Lemass, and very strongly support it. I will quote from the advertisement. "Here are extracts from a document captured from one of the election workers on the 30th January last"—"election workers" is in inverted commas:
We must devote all energies towards destroying Ministers' persons and property. Train all members in use of firearms, bombs, laying of mines, etc. Concentrate activities on houses of Ministers and public officials. Blow up theatres, cinemas and places of amusement.
That is what is issued by the election agent for a particular candidate. With Deputy Lemass, I want to know where was that document found? By whom was it found? Was it found by the police? If it was, was it quoted in public court, and if not quoted in any public court, how did the writer of the advertisement get hold of it? Has the person on whom that document was found been brought to trial?
Is he locked up?
Mr. O'Connell
Has he been brought to trial? If found in possession of that document, I take it, he should be brought to trial. Has he been brought to trial? We want some explanation. The Minister for Defence deliberately avoided giving any explanation or said he did not know. I say that it is the business of someone on the Government Benches to know how a document that was in the possession of the police apparently got into the hands of the advertisement writer of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party. The House is entitled to an explanation on a matter of that kind, which deliberately associates a Party in this House with people who are found in possession of documents of that kind.
There is just one other matter that I will mention with regard to the action of the police. I do not agree with the action, or the line of policy, taken up by the Minister for Justice in regard to irregularities committed by the police. His line is, as I understand it, that if they break the ordinary law let them be prosecuted. That is as far as I understand his attitude. That is not the usual attitude in the case of Government servants and of servants of other Departments. There are departmental regulations to be observed, as well as questions of ordinary law, and I have no hesitation whatever in saying that if a policeman is convicted of assault, or of any crime that makes him unworthy of being a policeman, then he should be no longer a policeman.
I quite agree.
Mr. O'Connell
Does the Minister admit that?
Certainly.
Mr. O'Connell
Does the Minister admit that there is no person in the police to-day who was convicted of conduct of that kind?
I say there is no person in the police to-day who was found guilty of conduct justifying his dismissal from the force.
Mr. O'Connell
That is only hedging.
It is a plain, simple answer.
Mr. O'Connell
It is a plain answer, but who is to be the judge?
The judges naturally are his authorities.
Mr. O'Connell
I am only expressing my own view when I say that a person who was found guilty by the Court of things which members of the police force—the Waterford incident was referred to—were found guilty of, in my humble opinion, and I speak as an ordinary citizen—a man in the street if you like— ought not to be a member of the police force if we are going to have that respect for our police force that we ought to have. I know, and the Minister for Education knows, that people engaged in his Department who may break the law, are not only punished for it, but the Department will hold an investigation afterwards, and I say rightly. Whether the law says a man is to be convicted or not the Department will act, and the Minister for Education knows a case where a court found a man innocent of the charges brought against him, but the Department had its own regulations, and had its own investigation and dismissed the man, because it thought he was not worthy to hold the position, and, in my opinion, quite rightly dismissed him, because he was not worthy to hold the position. But the Minister for Justice takes a different attitude. He says: "Let the law take its course." There is more reason for such a course in this case, because they are the instruments of the law, and there should be strict regulations in regard to them.
It is not good for the police themselves, it is not good for the force, and it will not engender that respect that I say all citizens ought to have for the police if that attitude is taken up, if on all occasions the Minister for Justice feels himself bound to defend the police? We had a case in another country not very long ago where quite a different attitude was adopted, and we must not take it for granted that, though the police as a body may be very good in carrying out their duties, there is not a black sheep in every flock, and the flock will be all the better for getting rid of the black sheep.
Quite right.
Mr. O'Connell
I hope the Minister will not take up the attitude he seems to be taking, that if charges are brought they will not be investigated in his own Department, but that if people are found guilty in the way some have been found guilty they will be brought to justice, and not only that but dismissed the force, because they are not people who ought to hold a position which should command the respect of the whole community, no matter to what party they belong.
I have had notice from Deputy O'Connell of at least one other matter that is to be raised to-day on the Central Fund Bill. Deputy Lemass expressed very admirably at the beginning of his speech what the views of the Chair are with regard to the debates on the Central Fund Bill, and this debate, although one might not imagine it, purports to be on the Ministry of Justice and on certain recent actions taken by the police. I want to indicate to the House that that matter must be concluded at some particular moment so that other matters might be taken up. I do not want the debate to continue on more than one subject at the same time.
Before I come to deal with the speech—a very extraordinary speech, in my judgment—which Deputy Lemass delivered to-day I will shortly deal with what Deputy O'Connell has just said, that is, the question as to how my Department deals with irregularities in the conduct of the police. If one were to take Deputy O'Connell's words, knowing nothing about the facts, one would come to the conclusion that no men were ever dismissed from the force; one would come to the conclusion that no inquiries were ever held into the conduct of men in the force; one would come to the conclusion that the force was a force in which discipline was lax. The very opposite is the case. Whenever the conduct of a man comes under suspicion it becomes the duty of his authorities to investigate his conduct. That investigation is always and under all circumstances carried out. Men are dismissed. Very frequently there are complaints against Guards against whom no charges are promulgated in the courts or in this House. In every case inquiry is held by the officials responsible for the maintenance of discipline in the Guards, and upon these reports action is taken and the Guard is appropriately dealt with. Deputy O'Connell said that men are dismissed from the Department of Education—National Teachers and the like, I suppose, who have been acquitted of charges in the courts. It is exactly the same with the Guards. A man who was recently acquitted by a jury in the South of Ireland was discharged from the force. On the other hand, when there are rather trivial cases of assault it is considered by the authorities that dismissal is not necessary—cases in which assault arose under tremendous provocation and in which the juries have found that the assault was not serious.
We come back now to the old Waterford case which is always brought up in this House. What are the facts of the Waterford case? Guards, young men, unarmed, were foully murdered when doing their duty. I have heard denunciations of the Guards for attacking people, but I have never yet heard denunciations of the men who murdered the Guards. On that occasion the Guards did use a certain amount of violence which they were not justified in using towards persons in their custody. These cases were made the subject not only of an ordinary inquiry by the police force, but of an inquiry by a special tribunal set up by the then Minister for Justice, and certain sums were awarded to the persons who were attacked. These cases were subsequently brought into court, and verdicts were awarded by a jury, but they were very small verdicts. I did not anticipate this debate or the turn it would take, so I cannot at the moment give particulars of the amounts awarded, but, unless my memory is very wrong, the largest sum awarded was something like £30, and the smallest, I think, either £5 or £6. That is to the best of my recollection. In these cases disciplinary action was taken, but, considering all the circumstances and the provocation under which these men acted, it was not considered that dismissal was necessary in any case. That brings me to the statement, the terrible statement, which was contained in the speech of Deputy Lemass, who said that as a result of the inquiry in the Waterford case one officer was dismissed, and the Deputy went on to say that following close on that event the then Minister for Justice, Mr. Kevin O'Higgins, was murdered by the Guards. That is a terrible statement to make.
The Minister is misquoting me, I think.
Did the Deputy not say that Mr. O'Higgins was murdered by the Guards? What were his words?
If I knew that I would have said it.
What did Deputy de Valera say? Did he not say that he heard it repeated again and again?
I do not mind repeating it.
That is a different point.
I beg your pardon——
That is a different point. This is a specific point about the Waterford case. The Minister says that Deputy Lemass stated that the late Minister for Justice was murdered by the Guards. I think we should give Deputy Lemass an opportunity of stating what he did say.
I said that it was my personal belief that he was murdered by men who were at one time in the Government pay.
It is contrary to my practice, and I do not like doing it now, to make clear what Deputies have said. The particular case at issue is the Waterford case, and the Waterford inquiry was connected specifically this evening in this House with the murder of the late Minister for Justice. I think we should go no further in regard to that and leave it there.
That was the impression left on my mind. If Deputy Lemass did not wish to convery that impression. I would like to know what impression he did wish to convey.
The impression I wished to convey was that the Minister for Justice had enemies outside the Republican movement, men who knew how to use a gun.
Then am I to take it that the Deputy did not make the statement connecting that murder with the Waterford incident?
I do not know; there is a possibility.
He is running away from it.
The Deputy says there is a possibility. I like plain, frank, open statements, but I do not like hedging.
Running away.
We will not all run away. I have a word to say. I do not say that Deputy Lemass is running away.
We have heard from Deputy Boland and Deputy de Valera the statement that they have heard, at any rate, that members of the Guards were associated with that foul murder. There is no contradiction there. Deputy de Valera does not run away. He stands his ground on this occasion. Am I to take it so?
He always stood his ground.
There is no possibility of conducting any debate in this House if Deputies will not listen to their opponents. I suggest to Deputies who are interrupting that if Deputy de Valera's speech had been received with one-hundredth part of the heat displayed towards the Minister for Justice the place would be in an uproar. Deputies should listen to the arguments of their opponents.
Here is this charge from Deputy de Valera, backed up by Deputy Boland, that the late Minister for Justice was murdered by members of the Guards. I have heard in this House again and again groundless charges made against the Guards, but I did not think that any Deputy in this House, without the slightest shadow of evidence, without the possibility of producing one shred of evidence, would degrade himself to the position to which Deputy de Valera and Deputy Boland have degraded themselves to-day.
Why were charges made against Republicans without evidence? That is what I want to know.
Oh, leave him alone.
I am perfectly ready and willing to deal with that. I say that there are persons here who, without a shred of evidence or shadow of foundation, without being able to produce the slightest bit of evidence, even suspicion, are bringing charges against a force like the Civic Guards, persons who are not fit to black the boots of the youngest recruit in the Guards.
took the Chair.
Many of them are well-known murderers, and I will name them if you like.
The Deputy may know a good deal about murder.
Too much, to his bitter cost. You have the chief murderer in this country in your employment. If you want his name we will throw it across.
Order, order.
You may. Any statements that come from Deputy Boland after his statement to-day would be treated with the contempt it deserves.
Mr. Boland
Of course. Truth is bitter.
It is flung up to the Civic Guard that the murderers of Mr. O'Higgins have not been found. I admit that there is no evidence, no conclusive proof, at the present moment, that could be brought into court as to the murder of Mr. O'Higgins. If you get this association, the same association, I believe and I have reason to believe, that has murdered young Mr. Armstrong and tried to murder Mr. White, you get an association in which members plan secretly. There are five or six men, they have relays of motor cars to get away, and it is very hard to obtain convictions in those cases. In the case of the late Mr. O'Higgins it was harder still, because the murder was done at a time when there were only one or two persons who could possibly identify the murderers. I myself, and I am speaking deliberately, have far from abandoned hopes that those men who so foully murdered the late Mr. O'Higgins will yet expiate their crime on the scaffold. Of course the idea of Deputy de Valera and Deputy Lemass is to cut down the Guards by half; let crime flourish, let us have only half enough Guards.
They have not succeeded in stopping crime.
They have stopped it. Deputy Lemass does not want them to stop crime. Deputy Lemass does not want them to prevent crime being committed. He does not want them to search for documents persons who they know are engaged in a criminal conspiracy.
If they know, why do they not charge them with it?
Why do they not charge them with it? Because there is a great deal of difference between knowledge and complete legal proof.
Is it a crime to be suspected by a detective?
To be suspected by a detective is a very good reason why you should be searched and a very good reason why you should be prevented from committing crime. Deputy Lemass said that these searches were carried out because there happened to be an election campaign in progress. Was it because there was an election coming on that there was an attempt made to murder poor Mr. White? Was it because there was an election coming on that poor young Armstrong was murdered? Is that the point?
No. Is it yours?
No, they followed quick and hard on an attempted murder in one case and a successful murder in the other. That is the explanation of the timing, and when the election is over I can tell the Deputy that exactly the same steps will be taken to prevent a recurrence of crime of this particular nature. Deputy Lemass for the first time to-day seemed to denounce, not by name, but rather by a generality, this murder and this attempted murder. It is the first time I have heard crimes of that nature denounced in this House by Opposition Deputies. I have again and again asked in the House that they should denounce this class of crime. Again and again I asked the Opposition whether they considered that perjury by jurymen was lawful, and I could get no answer. Again and again I have charged the Deputies with moral cowardice in being afraid to express opinions which, at any rate, I hoped they held. To-day Deputies seem to have got a little more courage. To-day Deputies, though rather tentatively, as far as Deputy de Valera was concerned— he comes along with his excuses and palliatives and all the rest of it—have specifically denounced, though not so specifically as I would wish, that particular class of crime. If Deputies would get up in this House or on platforms and would deliberately say that every man, who murders a juryman or murders a witness, is guilty of wilful murder, they would certainly raise themselves in the estimation of most persons and they would cease to be regarded as potential sources of strength by the persons who commit those crimes.
Have you stopped murder?
We will stop murder; do not be in the least afraid. We will stop it very successfully. We are told that these speeches frighten people, upset confidence and all that sort of thing, and that that was the result of the President's speech the other day. It is not by shutting your eyes to what happens that you master conspiracies of this nature. It is by recognising that those conspiracies are in existence and taking every necessary means of crushing them. It is not a widespread conspiracy. It has not got a tremendous number of men in it. It is a conspiracy which is losing ground day by day. It is a conspiracy, the members of which are already losing heart. It is a conspiracy, the members of which know that every single person in this country, who values the name of this country, and who believes in the Ten Commandments, is against them, and, outside their own wretched little circle, the only bit of exhortation or the only bit of encouragement they get is from speeches like that which Deputy de Valera made here to-day.
I want to say as definitely as I possibly can that at no time did I stand for murder. I am prepared to denounce the murder of prisoners, jurymen or witnesses, as strongly as any member of this House. The Minister who has just sat down has taken good care to mention only the Guards. I have had some complaints against the ordinary Guards in the way of doing electioneering work, working for the Cumann na nGaedheal, and batoning people at odd times, but I never charged them with murder. The Minister supplied the very sentence I wanted in making my case against a particular section of his police force, the C.I.D., when he said that knowledge is a different thing from complete legal proof. That is the position some of us are in. There is a gentleman, who is going to be nameless—I can tell the Minister privately his name, but he knows it probably as well as I do—and who was associated with shocking murders in 1922 and 1923, at present employed in the C.I.D. If that is information for the Minister he must be living with his head in the sand. It is commonly believed in this city that the gentleman who was involved in the Waterford murders knows more about the murder of the late Minister for Justice than any other man in this country.
What does the Deputy call the Waterford murders?
Mr. Boland
If I said murders, I meant beatings.
He just stopped short of murder.
Mr. Boland
I am glad the Minister corrected me if I said murder. I meant the Waterford beatings. I am going to say this to the credit of the late Minister—he took a firm hand against people of that sort. I know he cleared them out of the Army as far as he could. I did not love the Minister, but I am going to be just to him. He cleared as many of these people as he could out of the Army, but some of them stopped in the police; he could not clear them out of the police. He ordered an investigation—so the story goes, and there is a circumstantial case for it—a complete investigation into these Waterford beatings, and was satisfied that certain things were done which should not have been done, and these men were ordered to be dismissed. The Minister may laugh, but I am telling him what is believed by all responsible people in the country and in the city.
He ordered these men to be dismissed and those whose hands were stained with murder in the old days and who were involved in these beatings. I say that there was at least a prima facie case for investigation, and I have almost certain knowledge that there was never any investigation in that direction. If the Minister likes to put that down to a charge against the Civic Guards he can do so. I want to be as definite as I can. I say that in a case of a murder of that kind he should always insist, where there are reasonable grounds for suspicion, that the police should act. They have not to have definite proof; the judge and jury have to decide that. I defy him to say that those people who were involved in that inquiry were hauled up and an investigation held. I am sure they were not interrogated in the way people on our side were, with the muzzles of revolvers stuck into their ribs. I have almost certain knowledge that these people were completely ignored. The Minister for Defence referred to the coming time when these murderers would be brought to justice. As everybody knows that this Government is going out soon, he has the idea that the Government which will succeed them will not be afraid to get after these people. I must pay him that tribute anyhow. I suppose the tribute he paid us was unconscious; whether it was or not, I shall give him the benefit of the doubt. He certainly did say that the murderers of Kevin O'Higgins would be put on trial.
I said I had not given up hope that the murderers of Kevin O'Higgins would reach the scaffold.
Mr. Boland
I was referring to the Minister for Defence—the Minister for War. Reference has been made to last March. It was pointed out last March from these benches that these criminals attached to the C.I.D. were deliberately stirring up strife in the country, and an appeal was made to the Government to call them off, but nothing has been done. Instead of that, terrorism by them has been intensified—everybody knows it —with the inevitable result that there is trouble still in the country. There is no necessity for C.I.D.—at least for that particular section; there is certainly for a detective force which will investigate criminal conduct and look after robbers, thieves, murderers, and people like that. There is no justification for keeping people like the gentleman I, spoke about and his associates still in the pay of the Government.
I am going to repeat what Deputy Lemass said, that there is only one explanation for the evasive way in which the Minister replied to the charges of misconduct against these people, and that is a regard for his own skin. That is all I have to say on the subject, except that the sooner you call off these political C.I.D. men, these survivors of the murderers of 1922, the better for everybody, both in this House and in the country in general.
I wish to deal with a few matters, and I regret that the Minister for Justice has left the House. There is in existence in my constituency amongst the C.I.D. a definite conspiracy to drive certain young men out of the country and to incite others to commit crime. A fortnight ago a list of these cases was sent to the Minister for Justice by one of my colleagues, and the Minister has not had the decency to send a reply. These were cases where young men were held up constantly on their way to work. A few days ago one young man going to work in Ford's factory was held up by C.I.D. men, taken away for the day, and released that night, without any charge being made against him or any questions being asked of him. On three separate occasions recently one of the checkers on the Great Southern Railways has been taken from his train at Limerick Junction and Mallow and searched by C.I.D. men. What is at the back of it all? It is a deliberate attempt to have these young men driven from their employment. I have another case of a young man from Cobh who, within the past six months, has been searched at least seven times every week, sometimes four times in the one day. On Christmas Eve that young man and a comrade were arrested and charged with housebreaking and kept in jail for three weeks. When they were brought before the District Justice one of the C.I.D. men who were bringing the charge was being cross-examined when the District Justice stopped the case and dismissed the charge without even hearing any evidence for the defence. That is a deliberate attempt to drive certain young men out of the country on account of their political opinions. Ministers talk of murder. Recently a Peace Commissioner was shot in Cork by a C.I.D. man.
Is that case still before the courts?
It has been tried and the gentleman has been acquitted.
It was proved to be accidental.
I shall deal with it now, and you can deal with it afterwards. I shall prove it to your satisfaction. The inquest was stopped ——
If the case was decided in the courts it is not proper to raise it in the House.
If you rule that way, I am not going to go into the case itself, but I will go into a few points about it. Immediately this gentleman was returned for trial to the Central Criminal Court he left Mallow courthouse in charge of C.I.D. men and Civic Guards and he adjourned with them to a publichouse to drink. This prisoner who was returned for trial on a charge of murder, on his way from the courthouse to the jail, was taken into a publichouse to drink by his former comrades of the C.I.D. and Civic Guards. If the Minister for Justice wishes to have any inquiry into that, I shall furnish him with sworn affidavits from those who were present in the publichouse where the prisoner returned for trial on a charge of murder and the Civic Guards and the C.I.D. were drinking together.
That was not an atrocity on the prisoner.
It is a question of the way in which your paid gentlemen are carrying out their duties. If they chose to take a prisoner returned for trial for murder into a publichouse to drink, there is something very queer about it. I have been prevented by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle from dealing with this particular case.
Come on to Williams now?
Or to Jasper Wolfe?
Mr. Wolfe
Who shot Williams?
Who should have shot you?
A Deputy
"I said cock robin."
I would like Deputies on the opposite benches to compare the manner in which that trial was conducted, and the manner in which the trials of others were conducted. The State Solicitor in that trial was more a solicitor for the defence than for the Crown.
The Deputy must not go into the details of that trial.
I said here that these gentlemen were guilty of inciting to crime. In a great many cases these young men, despite the attempts that had been made to drive them to it, had not gone on the run. In one case, where they made repeated raids on a house, they did succeed in causing the young man to go on the run. He was on the run for two years. During those two years the people of the district—the citizens of the county—protected him, sheltered him, and fed him. They succeeded in capturing him, and the C.I.D. men succeeded in getting rid of him by giving him five years. That young man, against whom there was no charge, was deliberately forced upon the run by repeated raids upon his house by night and by day by those supposed guardians of the peace.
I have nothing to say against the uniformed members of the force. As far as I can see, they are doing their duty fairly. But there is a murder gang in that force deliberately trying to hold their positions in this country by stirring up strife, trouble and disturbance. It is not four days ago since there was a body of young men taken into the local police barracks in my district and after being detained for a while they were released. One of these young men was found on the side of the road the following morning with his head smashed in, and was conveyed to the North Infirmary. These are facts that will very well bear investigation. If the Minister for Justice cared to investigate them he has had a fortnight to investigate the charges handed in by Deputy Flinn. Apparently he has no reply to make to these charges. If this condition of affairs is to be allowed to continue we shall want another police force to protect the civilian population from the murder gang of the Minister for Justice.
The position of the Minister for Justice in regard to any criticism of the Gárda is shown in the attitude he adopted here to-day. Time after time, when questions are raised in this House, when complaint is made about the interference with civilians, or of unjustifiable attacks on civilians by members of the Gárda, the Minister has taken up the attitude that there was no necessity to investigate these charges, as there were no charges to be investigated. He absolutely accepts the doctrine that it is impossible for the Gárda to do anything but what is right. Some members of this House being foolish enough to believe that as the Minister knew legal procedure there was a method by which he could be forced to give some little attention and examination to the charges made from time to time Deputies have resorted for some time back, where attacks were made by the Guards, to the practice of getting affidavits sworn. The Minister is well aware that where affidavits are sworn before a Peace Commissioner or a Commissioner for Oaths there is a method of dealing with people that make false statements in these affidavits, and it has been urged from time to time upon the Minister that if he wanted to deal with these matters and have an impartial investigation, the attitude for him to adopt would be to act, for the purpose of investigating at any rate, on the affidavits. If the affidavits are incorrect the Minister is well aware he has a method of dealing with the people who swore these affidavits. The Minister has not done that. He has taken up the attitude that the Gárdaí are wonderful people, that they are angels, and that he has suddenly fixed them with wings. As pointed out by several Deputies to-day, that is not the method to be adopted or the line to be followed if the force which he takes such an interest in is to be preserved as an impartial force.
Definite charges were made by Deputy Lemass with regard to matters that have happened in the last fortnight in the City of Dublin. The Minister made no attempt to reply. If I may describe his speech, it struck me as consisting of a lot more noise than argument. The Minister was very definitely questioned by Deputy Lemass and Deputy O'Connell with regard to a certain document. Neither he nor the Minister for Defence has made any attempt to explain how that document ever came out of the hands of the C.I.D. and the police force, if it ever was there, and got into the hands of the election agent for a certain candidate for the City of Dublin. The Minister for Defence gave us a lecture on morals and ethics, but deliberately refrained from answering the few points put to him. The Minister for Justice made most wild attacks about people running away from murder which has nothing to do with the debate and deliberately avoided answering questions put to him. I would like to call the Minister's attention to a fact with regard to the case of the late Mr. Armstrong. What seemed unprecedented in a corner's inquest procedure is that when a particular person is mentioned, or implicated, that person was not given an opportunity of being called before the court. There was a State Prosecutor, and he was in possession, apparently, of certain information, and on that information he proceeded to examine witnesses. The name of a Deputy on this side of the House was disclosed, and certain facts, at any rate relevant to an inquiry of that kind, which connected a Deputy on this side of the House with that particular gentleman were mentioned. The State Prosecutor did not ask that that Deputy should be brought here. No opportunity was given him to come there. I suggest to the Minister that he knows well the reason. Can the Minister state for what purpose or with what object or for what reasons or by what stretch of the imagination he can justify actions such as were carried out in the last fortnight by the C.I.D. in Dublin?
Take, for example, the case of the C.I.D. going into a house and asking for a particular person. That person is not there. Then they say to another, "Come along; you will do all right." That other man is kept in for 23½ hours, or something like that; at any rate, within the limit of 24 hours. Another man is cycling along the streets. An unknown civilian rushes up, knocks him off his bicycle, pushes him into a van; he then beats him in the van and brings him to Pearse Street. When he asks why he is assaulted it is said: "This man knew perfectly well who these other men were." They are C.I.D. One of these men was a man called Lenihan, a stranger to the Dublin district. When he was brought down to Pearse Street the Superintendent was called in, and had to get a man to identify Lenihan, because he himself did not know who Lenihan was. The explanation given afterwards as to why this man was assaulted, knocked off his bicycle, and beaten in the van, was that he would not go with these people easily, although he knew perfectly well who these people were. Yet the Superintendent did not know one of his own men. There were several other cases. The practice was to get people into the Bridewell and keep them there over twenty-three hours and then let a batch out. When that batch got out the C.I.D. arrested them and took them back again. That practice was very successful in keeping people out of their employment. It was the practice, at any rate, during the last fortnight. This is not civilised law of any description, nor is it the methods resorted to by ordinary, civilised Governments, although we have heard a lot about Mexico and places like that. It is doubtful if they ever had in Mexico any such mob law as was resorted to by the C.I.D. in Dublin during the last fortnight.
The reason was, a juryman was shot, but it is a strange thing that this raiding and arresting started some time about the 1st March, and some days before that the "Daily Mail" and the "Irish Times" could prepare the people for those things to happen. We had it all staged and set. A leader in one of the daily papers circulating in this city gave President Cosgrave's grave statement. I put it to anyone that this was a mean electioneering stunt, an attempt to stampede people and create amongst them an impression of uneasiness and uncertainty and of serious things hanging over them at the present time. Those actions and that attitude have been followed up to the present but when the election is over we do expect that the Minister will see his way to depart from those shock tactics or mob tactics which his forces have been carrying out for the last month, and release those men who are in prison without any charge being preferred against them. Much has been said by the Minister from time to time in praise of the Civic Guards and the C.I.D. If they have the wonderful forces they are supposed to have in the City of Dublin, why is it necessary to seize people indiscriminately, take them from their employment and home, and fling them into prison, keep them there for about three hours, and release them? If affidavits are filed and submitted to the Minister stating that these people go into a house and say "We are looking for your brother but you will do as well, anyone at all will do," then they are taken to the Bridewell for the purpose of interrogation, that no interrogatories are submitted in the Bridewell or Pearse Street, and they are then let out, then action should be taken. Take the cases mentioned here from time to time, the Newport cases, for example, and others. It may not appear strange to the Minister, but does it not appear strange to the House that in all cases where a civilian takes proceedings against the Guards they immediately have the assistance of the State Solicitor.
You have an example of the assistance given in these Newport cases; where a Circuit Court Judge finds in damages against the Guards; there is an appeal. The Chief State Solicitor and the whole forces of the Government legal department are brought to work to assist those Guards, those criminals, to escape from their crime. There is an appeal and a new trial ordered. It goes back. A decree is given, and the Government's legal department is at work in another appeal to wear out those unfortunate poor people who have been the subject of the crimes of the Guards. If that is what might be called decent government it is not an ordinary man's opinion of what is civilised government.
The Minister thinks that by simply stating he is convinced that every statement that is made against the Guards is unfounded that is going to get the position made better. He thinks he will create such a position that people will consider it hopeless and useless for them to make any charges against the Guards. He knows that time after time charges have been brought against the Guards, and that those charges have been unsuccessful. It would be only just when these charges are made, and affidavits are sworn before officials of the court, that he should have them investigated and inquired into instead of giving a blank refusal in this House and stating blatantly, coldly and callously that there is not a word of truth in them. If there is not a word of truth in them, proceedings can be taken against the people who made the false affidavits. If the position is to continue by which the Guards can carry out activities such as they have carried out, and no investigation is to be held with regard to them, and the Minister pats them on the back and says "You are fine fellows, the more irregularly, the more you act like a mob, the more you go about in civilian clothes, stick guns up against people, keep people in cells in Bridewells and so on, the more you take a person away because there is a suspicion that his brother was concerned in an illegal organisation," then he is not going to get much respect for the Guards or for law and order, in this country anyway.
I wish to refer to an incident that happened recently in the country, in which the Guards, in my opinion and in the opinion of a good many other people in the country, did act with a good deal of irregularity. I refer to a raid on a mail van, in which money was being transferred to a bank in Leitrim. Naturally that was a crime which most people, in fact all people, resent, and no people more than the people in the County Leitrim, where the robbery took place. Any assistance, as far as the people were concerned, which was at their disposal to trace the culprit in that case would have been voluntarily offered. Instead of asking for local assistance that would be very valuable in tracing up a crime of that sort, the community was terrorised for a few days after the event. Guards and C.I.D. men took very drastic action in invading various homesteads in the countryside as far as twelve miles distant from where the robbery took place. It may appear rather significant to people down the country that all, or practically all, of these raids were made on people who were supposed to be of Republican tendencies. As I have said, the people in that part of the country are naturally anxious that the robbers in that case should be traced, because of the reflection on the people where the robbery took place, and a good deal of criticism has gone on as a result of the raids. We find that it is a case of being wise after the event, or of making an appearance of being wise. This mail van travelled from Carrick-on-Shannon, a distance of about twenty miles. It had no protection on the journey. Within about five miles of its destination, a Guard was waiting to escort it the last few miles of its journey, but when it was within a mile of where the Guard was waiting, the robbery took place. It will take a good deal to show reason why the Guards should have faced the situation there by the means I have described, a raid upon the whole countryside, covering a radius of about twelve miles and upon a particular section of the people.
By what stretch of the imagination could it be held that these people had knowledge that that particular van contained a sum of £1,000, or whatever it was? That direct effort by the authorities to place the responsibility for that robbery upon a particular section of the people has at least confirmed that section, and I am sure a good many others, that there was never any serious effort made to trace the culprits, and that the efforts that were made were rather calculated to put responsibility on to a certain section rather than to trace the real culprits. As I have said, this is a matter of very great interest to the people of Leitrim. They are anxious to give every assistance in their power to trace the persons responsible for the robbery, but they are forced to the conclusion that the action that was taken by the police was for the purpose of discrediting one particular party in the district. Clearly, the community have a right to expect better than that from a responsible force such as the Civic Guards. I have no fault to find against the Civic Guards. I have made complaints against them here that they showed political bias. I do not refer to the ordinary Guard. I have known him to be a very decent fellow and capable of his post, but there is no question about it, and it has been proved in this House, that officers in the Guards have a political tendency, and that they direct the force in that way. Coming back to this occurrence in Leitrim, I feel that it is my duty to point out to those in authority that their officers in that particular case have failed to make an honest effort to discover crime regardless of where they would find the culprits. If an effort of that sort is not made, then clearly, crime will continue to be rampant, because the very forces that are supposed to be hunting down crime are rather inciting to it.
What is the danger to a person if he does not belong to a particular party in committing a crime, if he has in his mind beforehand the idea that because he does not belong to a political party he will not be suspected or subjected to any inquiry? In face of a situation like that, I have no hesitation in stating that this country is really up against a very grave problem, and that problem is the direct result of the Government Party in this country endeavouring to belittle and besmear their opponents as criminals and to create a belief that they are the saviours of the country. Again and again, it has been stated, and it is pretty well recognised, that that is the chief instrument of the Government Party at by-elections and at general elections. That form of intimidation on voters has been practised, that if they vote against the official Government Party, they are voting for a new form of danger. The Minister for Justice, speaking a few moments ago, asked a question that struck me rather forcibly. He asked was it because an election was about to take place that these murders occurred. It came to my mind to answer him that there was a certain amount of suspicion about it, because down the country, whenever there is any great talk about looting, murders and robberies, there is a belief that an election is not far off. I think the only part of the Government's policy that really has influence with the voters is that. It is reasonable to assume that they would make the most of it, and there is a strong suspicion that there is a good deal of this crime for which a lot of suspicion will fall, naturally, on the Government. It would be a much more honest way of dealing with these things if those responsible would face their responsibility in tracing down culprits by regarding a person or persons innocent until proved guilty rather than charge a certain section of the people with guilt without justification.
This bandying of words about the merits or demerits of the wars of the past is not going, in my opinion, to help to put a meal in the mouths of those who may become hungry on or after the 1st April, as a result of the reduction in the social services. I want to refer particularly to the disastrous effects which may be brought about by the proposed reduction in the Post Office Estimates. I understand that there are about 2,500 auxiliary postmen in the service of the Post Office, outside those employed in and around the City of Dublin. I understand also that the average pay of these 2,500 auxiliary postmen is in or about 22/- per week. The Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, in answering a supplementary question this evening, admitted that the savings as a result of this so-called policy of economy would mean about £40,000. I have been given to understand—apparently the Parliamentary Secretary himself is not quite clear upon this matter—that from 800 to 1,000 temporary auxiliary postmen are likely to become unemployed on and from the 1st April as a result of this economy stunt for which the Parliamentary Secretary is mainly responsible.
The Parliamentary Secretary admitted that there would be a saving of about £40,000. Therefore, the figure must be about 700 or 800 men. Now the members of this Party propose to vote against the Second Reading of this Central Fund Bill, mainly because we object most strongly and emphatically to this reduction in the Post Office Estimate, and because we believe that rather than effect economy for the ratepayers or taxpayers it will mean in the ultimate added expense to the farmer ratepayers, for whom Deputy Heffernan presumes to speak in this House.
When this matter of the reduction of the Post Office Estimate came before a meeting of the Wexford County Committee of Agriculture some days ago, Mr. Michael Doyle, a respected member of the late Farmers' Party in this House, said, as reported in the Press: "The people in the rural areas are entitled to the same services as the residents in the cities and towns. They were taxpayers and had to pay a tax porterage for telegrams, while those living close to the offices escaped scot free. Time after time the Farmers' Party in the Dáil tried, and have been trying, to raise the question of postal facilities, but they were out-voted on every occasion. He was now surprised to see at the head of the Post Office a former member of that Party"—I thought Deputy Heffernan was still a member of that Party—"proposing to curtail the postal facilities." That statement has been made on behalf of the farmer ratepayers of the Co. Wexford by ex-Deputy Michael Doyle, so that Deputy Heffernan will gather there is at least some opposition to his policy of putting into operation a so-called economy campaign as and from 1st April. Now Deputy Heffernan, in answer to a supplementary question here this day fortnight, was not in a position to give an assurance to the House that this policy of reorganisation, when it comes into operation, would guarantee to the people who had the longest service and the longest experience that they would be given preferential treatment over those who had short service and short experience. I have here a letter from a man with 34 years' experience in the service of the Post Office. It is typical of documents which I have received and which have been received in the last few days by members of this Party.
This man writes: "I beg to in-form you that I have received very bad news informing me that I will be reduced to three days a week from the 1st April. It is most heart-breaking after 34 years' service, without any irregularities, that I should get this notice. What will be now left will be of little use to me, situated as I am with a young family. Can you do anything for me?" This letter has been written by a postman who has 34 years' service, without one blot on his record. He has served in the same sub-office for 34 years. At present there are two other auxiliary men with him. I refer to these cases to show that there is terrible confusion in the minds of the Post Office authorities as to what should be done as a result of this economy stunt, which is to save £40,000 a year in the Post Office. One of these men, after three years' service, has 13/5 per week, and another, with three or four years' service, receives £1 2s. The man with 34 years' service is at present in receipt of 32/- a week, and he is going to be dealt with in the same way through this economy policy of Deputy Heffernan as the man without a family and with only three years' service. The man with 13/5 per week will not accept 6/8 ½ per week, which he would be getting if his hours were cut in two. I presume he will be intelligent enough to say: "I decline to accept this." As a result of that he will be entitled to unemployment benefits, which will bring him in more than the money he would be entitled to receive by accepting the new conditions. But he will only receive this unemployment benefit for 26 weeks, and for the remaining six months of the year he would be entitled to claim, and would possibly get, home assistance for himself and his dependents. That will have to be paid by the people for whom Deputy Heffernan speaks in this House. The farmers, for whom the Deputy speaks, will be in the position of having to pay home help, and at the same time they will be deprived of the postal facilities they had up to now. Undoubtedly these men will be entitled to claim home help six months after the 1st April next.
I am prepared to give Deputy Heffernan full credit for this—he is one of the whole-hog Free Trade supporters of the present Government. The present Government favours the policy of selective protection. The Deputy walked out of the House the other night. He did not vote in the division taken in this House on the matter of the tariff on woollens and worsted goods which makes it possible for another thousand men to get employment. The Deputy comes in here and he is going to deprive between 800 and 1,000 men of their employment as a result of this economy policy. Ex-Deputy Michael Doyle is not prepared to swallow that. Deputy Heffernan is a whole-hog Free Trader. He is absolutely opposed to subsidies and all doles of any kind. As to whether that opposition is to apply to a subsidy to the Press for the forwarding of Press telegrams, and also subsidising the Press for the handling of newspapers sent through the post, I do not know. The Post Office suffers as a result of the forwarding of Press telegrams and newspapers. I want to refer the Deputy to the speech made by his predecessor in the Dáil on 26th May, 1926—Mr. J.J. Walsh, the late Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. I might observe that Deputy Heffernan has been reduced in his rank or, at all events, he is below the rank of Minister——
He is Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs.
Mr. J.J. Walsh, in the course of a debate on the Estimates in May, 1926—I had better give the full text of the speech— said:—"I have just said that the last completed commercial balance sheet for the year ending March, 1925, reveals the actual loss in that year to have been £471,000... on the postal side we lost £290,000; on telegrams we lost £178,000; on telephones we lost £3,348;... in the case of letters we netted a sum of £231,000. The letter section of our business showed a gain to that extent. In the case of postcards we had a profit of £3,080. These were the only two items which showed a gain, the total being £234,080. On the other hand, under the head of postal we lost £119,500 on printed paper. This is generally termed printed paper matter as distinct from newspapers. On newspapers we lost £66,200, on parcels £104,329, on registered parcels £81,600, on money orders £11,660, and on postal orders £11,600. The total loss there is £524,199 as against the profit in the case of letters and postcards of £234,080, leaving a net loss on the postal side of £290,119."
Now, the gist of that statement summed up is this, that the taxpayers, through the Post Office in Ireland in 1926, and to a greater extent to-day have lost £66,200 on the handling of newspapers, and the total loss on postal telegrams that year was £33,800. I suggest that that is nothing more than subsidising the newspapers, surprised and all as the Deputy may be to hear me put the case that way. At any rate, if the people who makes use of telegrams and who use the Post Office for the forwarding of newspapers would pay the cost of handling the newspapers and the cost of sending the postal telegrams, it would bring added revenue much needed in the Department, and it would save Deputy Heffernan terrible trouble and disaster, for assuredly there will be disaster if he throws out of employment anything between 800 and 1,000 men. He will remedy the situation if he adopts my suggestion. That is the way in which he will find the money, and I think he might reconsider his policy. By getting in money in that fashion he would be saved the trouble of putting this very unpopular policy into operation this year. The President and Deputy Heffernan know that the two principal papers in the State are whole-hog supporters of Free Trade. They are whole-hoggers to the same extent as Deputy Heffernan has been as a member of the late Farmers' Party. If Deputy Heffernan and the newspapers that get the subsidy are so concerned that the Government's policy should be to make those who get services pay for the services rendered, then let them make up to the Post Office the losses which it has incurred in the past through the handling of telegrams and newspapers. I presume the suggestion I have made that the Press should be charged the proper cost of telegrams and the cost of handling newspapers will not be reported.
The "Independent" will give it, anyway.
I hope Deputy Heffernan will consider the suggestion I have made. If he adopts it he will find himself in a position to meet the demands of the Minister for Finance, namely, that he should provide him with a certain amount of money in order to enable him to balance his Budget on paper. If I wanted to, I could go over the records of the Dáil four years ago and, on the Estimates dealing with the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, I could quote with considerable effect the speeches made by Deputy Gorey. To the extent that Deputy Heffernan did not disagree with Deputy Gorey, I say that Deputy Heffernan is equally responsible for what Deputy Gorey said on that occasion. In the course of the discussion on the Estimates Deputy Gorey said that the Farmers' Party and the people who had the benefit of the services in the rural areas should not be deprived of those services. Here we have one of Deputy Gorey's godchildren—he is not one of his children now—removing these facilities from the farmers and at the same time ensuring that the farmers will bear, in the shape of home assistance, the increased cost which must be borne as a result of the dismissal of these men.
There is one other matter that has a bearing on the question of a reduction of social services. The other day I referred to the effect of the proposed reduction of the amount previously provided out of the Land Commission Estimate for the improvement of estates. Deputy Cooper more or less challenged the accuracy of my statement. I have since read the records of the Public Accounts Committee, and the answer given by the Secretary of the Land Commission in regard to the failure to spend all the money voted in 1925-26 and in 1926-27 was that the Land Commission inspectors, who, in the ordinary way, would be supervising the expenditure of this money, were withdrawn from their normal work and put on work brought about as a result of the relief schemes introduced in those years. I read also the discussion on the Land Commission Estimate which took place last year.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Lands and Fisheries, speaking on the 18th April, said: "Sub-head (I)—Improvement of Estates, shows an increase of £49,200 That increase is inevitable when Deputies remember that we are acquiring and distributing lands now much more rapidly than we were able to do it hitherto. Last year, for instance, we distributed 60,000 acres of land acquired under the 1923 Land Act alone. That is quite apart from the land acquired by the Congested Districts Board and the Estates Commissioners. We divided 60,000 acres last year, whereas in the previous year we divided only 35,000 acres. That shows clearly and proves clearly that it is necessary to spend considerably more money on improvement works when the division of land is proceeding more rapidly than when the division proceeds at a moderate pace." This is the concluding part of his speech: "We hope to accelerate the pace at which land is to be distributed, and consequently to spend more money on improvement works this year." Now, that is my answer to Deputy Cooper, and also to the Parliamentary Secretary. That is the case that I put up against the reduction of 50 per cent. in the Estimate for that very valuable work.
I know perfectly well from experience that the moneys provided under this heading have given very valuable work in different parts of the country in connection with estates taken over under the Land Act of 1923. There has been much drainage work, house building, and the making of roads. Roughly, 80 per cent. of the amount provided in the Estimates under that sub-head went in the payment of wages, and the remainder for the provision of materials for the building of houses and so on.
The one remarkable thing that I notice in the Government's policy is that in reducing Estimates they hit the man in receipt of 20/- to 30/- a week and do not interfere with the man in receipt of anything between £20 and £30 a week. If we have arrived at that stage of national emergency when it is necessary for every citizen to make his own contribution towards the reduction of the cost of Government, why should not the man who receives £20 to £30 a week make a reasonable contribution, and why should all the contribution devolve on the man with 20/- or 30/-? Those engaged in arterial drainage will have their numbers reduced this year. Their wages are from 28/- to 30/-. The men employed on estate improvement work receive a similar sum, and they are to be reduced in number by 50 per cent. in the coming financial year. In the Postal Department we are to have a reduction of 800 to 1,000 men who receive an average wage of 22/-. I do not stand for that kind of economy which hits all the time at the man in receipt of a low wage, a wage which only keeps the individual beyond the border line of starvation.
I would like to agree with all Deputy Davin has said about the stunt economy that is being practised by Deputy Heffernan We are told, of course, that the economy in this year's Estimate is more or less as a result of Deputy Heffernan's Committee, of which he has been Chairman for a couple of years. If that is all that we are to reap from the Economy Committee which was set up to enquire into Departmental expenditure and which was to try to find out whether expenditure could be reduced, then I think Deputy Heffernan and his Committee have done a thing which is no credit to themselves or to the Party who established the Committee. As regards rural postal services there are many cases that I know where, instead of reducing the deliveries as is now proposed, there should be an increased delivery.
It is a great inconvenience to people. I understand that it is to be curtailed still more. We are told that it is in the interests of economy. As the Minister for Lands and Fisheries is present, I will now leave that subject and turn to a matter that is infinitely more important, namely, the position that the Departments for which the Minister is responsible will be in during the coming year as a result of the Estimates now before us. For some years we have been appealing to the Minister to attempt to do something definite as regards the fishing industry. We have made suggestions to him about boats and gear and things of that kind. We believe that if our suggestions had been carried out very great improvements would be effected in that industry. For some months past we have been all buoyed up with the hope, as a result of promises made by the Minister, that some definite action was about to be taken by means of the big mysterious Bill dealing with the fishing industry as a whole that was to be introduced. We felt that the great evil that exists in that industry was at last going to be set right. But when I look at the Estimates I find that provision is only made for an increase, as compared with last year, of something like £1,000 in regard to the fishing industry. Apart from that, it is only proposed to spend something like £18,000 on sea fishing or fishing in general. In view of these figures I fail to see how the Minister is going to make any radical changes in that industry, apart from what has been done during the last five or six years.
I really feel ashamed when talking of this Department. I think that the charity of our silence might be the best thing to offer to it. I would like to give justice to all the Departments, but not one single effort has been made by the Minister during the last five or six years to try to put the sea-fishing industry on a proper footing. There is no need to explain the present position of that industry. It was only last week that I was forced to approach a certain charitably disposed person in Dublin to get £50 in charity. This money was sent down to a certain fishing port in the West of Ireland. For years we have been appealing to the Minister to do something for the fishermen in that particular place. What I have just stated will enable Deputies to get an idea of the situation that exists there at present. The position with regard to the fishing industry is so bad that I think it is just as well I should now leave the matter without saying anything further about the Department responsible. From what I see in the Estimates, I have very little hope that any real, serious effort is going to be made by the Department of Lands and Fisheries to improve the present position of that industry. In my opinion it would be far more decent for that Department to get out altogether and not have the fishermen, as they are at present, living in hope that something will come to them. The position is that while they are waiting for that something to come they are obliged to live on the goodness of charitably disposed people.
With regard to the Land Commission, of which the same Minister is in charge, I would like to emphasise what Deputy Davin has said. The serious thing that we find in connection with this Department is that the amount in this year's Estimate for the improvement of estates shows a reduction of about £200,000. One of the greatest benefits carried out by the Land Commission was the improvement of estates. In the old days, under the Congested Districts Board, a very considerable amount of money was expended in that way. In the last few years the expenditure was not so large. Apart from the employment provided, good value was given for the expenditure of this money in the way of effecting considerable improvements on estates. A large amount of drainage was carried out; work was done in the way of improving roads, and there was also some bridge-building and work of that kind carried out on different estates. Scarcely any of this work is now being carried out by the Land Commission. Very little was done last year. We cannot hope that very much is going to be done in that way during the coming year when we find a reduction in the Estimates for the improvement of estates of, roughly, £200,000. I think that is a disgraceful method of effecting economy. If economy is to be effected it should not be practised at the expense of the agricultural community and the uneconomic landholders of the country. Evidently the greatest economy that the Government has been able to make is to be at the expense of the real down-and-outs in this country, the uneconomic landholders and the lowest paid Post Office officials—the postmen. The little economy attempted is to be at their expense. I think it is a really disgraceful attitude on the part of the Government. It is a thing that they decently cannot stand over. As regards the reduction in the Land Commission Vote, I cannot understand it at all.
Last year we were told by Deputy Roddy, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Lands and Fisheries, that the land of the country was being divided and settled with very great speed. Deputies, I am sure, have noticed that the greatest number of questions on the Order Paper week after week deal with the dividing up and settlement of land. When questions of that kind are put down we always get the reply that the matter referred to is receiving attention and "will be dealt with as expeditiously as possible." From the results that we see, that means that the questions are simply put aside in the wastepaper basket. About eighteen months ago I had some questions on the Order Paper with regard to estates in the County Mayo. The estates were then in the hands of the Land Commission. I asked a question about the division and settlement of these lands. The reply I got was that they were being "dealt with as expeditiously as possible." These estates are in the same position to-day as they were eighteen months ago. I have failed entirely to understand the replies we get to questions on the Order Paper, that the settlement of the land is being dealt with "as expeditiously as possible." I am beginning to feel that that is simply the way the Department has of waiving the question. On this matter I think that some speeding up is required. This is a very serious matter in a county like Mayo. It is a county in which I think the Department should be very specially interested. The county forms part of the Gaeltacht and has, I think, the largest percentage of uneconomic holders in the country. This Department is the one that more or less has to deal with that county. As far as that county is concerned, the Minister and his Department might as well have been, during the past two or three years, living in Mexico. I say that quite seriously, because nothing has been done in that county during that period by his Department.
They read out perhaps that a certain number of acres have been vested in the Land Commission, not the tenants, and that a number of estates have been acquired by the Land Commission, but those estates have been acquired during the past five or six years. They will not be able to point out in Mayo any uneconomic holdings that have been settled by the Land Commission definitely, or any relief work that has been carried out, or any serious effort made to deal with the Gaeltacht there. I think it is about time the efforts of the Land Commission should be directed in some decent direction, and the people be made to feel that they will not always have to be begging to have questions settled in the people's interest. There is another matter on which I would like a definite statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary, and that is the question of vesting holdings.
The question of vesting holdings was debated for, I think, four hours on the Vote on Account last week, and the Parliamentary Secretary replied to the debate. I do not think the Deputy ought to go into the question again, seeing that it was fully debated on that occasion.
There are only a couple of items which I would like to go into.
It is all right so long as the Deputy does not debate the general question.
No. Automatically with the coming into force of the Land Act it was understood the vesting of holdings would take place. It seems to me that vesting meant vesting in the Land Commission. I do not know if this point was dealt with in the discussion that took place, but I would like to know if it is beyond the power of the Land Commission to have holdings vested in the tenants and afterwards deal with whatever legal formalities there may be which at the moment are debarring the vesting of those holdings? It is a very serious matter. I think it costs the uneconomic holders something like £70,000 a year. The landlords gain something in that respect, and the tenants are losing. I would like the non-judicial holders, the judicial holders, and non-tenanted land to be dealt with. I can understand delay in the case of non-tenanted land. We are not at all satisfied with the efforts made by the Land Commission. If I were to deal more fully with the Department of Lands and Fisheries, there are a good many nasty things I would be inclined to say.
Every other day I am approached in a more or less begging fashion by people in Mayo asking me to approach the Land Commission on this, that and the other question. I am ashamed writing to the Land Commission, for I know the reply I will get will be: "The matter is receiving attention and will be dealt with as expeditiously as possible." That is all right in so far as the reply to me is concerned. It is courteous, but it means nothing, and it has meant nothing in the past. No efforts have been made to speed matters up. I think an extra effort should be made to do so, and not try and bluff Deputies on both sides of the House, and at the same time fool the people with the kind of economy practised in the Department at present. As I have said in my opening remarks, the only effort made in the way of economy was to attack the people who are in the worst position in the country. Efforts might be made to economise in other quarters with greater success and greater benefit to the community as a whole.
One other matter I would like to deal with in conclusion is with regard to the Dáil Eireann Loan. In County Mayo, and a good many other places, the people are very unjustly treated in regard to that loan. The loan was supposed to have been repaid years ago, but the position is that to-day you have thousands of subscribers to that loan in different counties, and because of some error or omission owing to the disturbances at the time the money was being collected they did not have their names registered.
Over a year ago lists were furnished from County Mayo to myself and others, with sworn declarations and statements signed by Peace Commissioners and the collectors. In addition, you have in the Department of Finance lists containing the amounts subscribed by the people from whom I have forwarded the sworn statements, and still the Department of Finance, for some mysterious reason, refuses to pay these people, and refuses to register their names. I do not think that is a decent way to deal with them. If, as the Minister for Agriculture said, we should pay 20/- in the pound to England we ought also to pay 20/- in the pound to the Irish people. I find very great fault with the Department of Finance for the way they are dealing with this question. I think the time has gone past when appeals should be made to the Department to deal with this question as decency demands, and they should be no longer hedging the question, and that is what they are doing as regards this loan. I hope they will take the matter up and deal with it at an early date.
I desire to join with Deputy Davin in protesting against the curtailment of the Post Office services and the reduction of the staff of auxiliary postmen. It seems to me very peculiar that not alone on this, but on other occasions, when the Minister for Finance endeavoured to balance his Budget, it was the social services or essential public services that were attacked, as was evidenced by the attack on the old age pensioners, the teachers' salaries and the road workers' wages. As far as the Post Office workers are concerned we find that considerable reductions have already been made. In 1923 there was a reduction of approximately 500 auxiliary postmen and allowance deliverers in rural districts. I think it was in the same year the wages of Post Office employees were reduced. I believe that the Post Office services have already been reduced to the absolute minimum, and that the efficiency of the Post Office cannot be maintained if the staff is reduced in the manner indicated in the reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to a question on the Order Paper to-day. The Post Office employees are, I believe, working under duress. I think it is a mistaken policy, in order to endeavour to balance the Budget, to reduce the Post Office services further.
From what I can gather, there are approximately 2,500 postmen and allowance deliverers outside Dublin City. According to what we are given to understand, it is only the rural areas which are going to suffer by this reduction in the postal services. Instead of having in the rural areas, as at present, six deliveries per week, we find it is contemplated by the Parliamentary Secretary to have only three deliveries. In County Donegal, a constituency which I represent, there are deliveries on only three days per week in some places. It is contemplated, I understand, to further reduce the deliveries in Donegal. Altogether 700 or 800 auxiliary postmen will be affected by this decision of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. I believe that in Co. Donegal about 150 men will be affected and almost 100 dismissals will take place.
In reply to a supplementary question which I put to the Parliamentary Secretary to-day in regard to alternative employment, he made the suggestion that some of these auxiliary postmen already had some form of alternative employment. But it might be surprising to the Parliamentary Secretary to know that of the 2,500 auxiliary postmen in the Saorstát there are at present not 10 per cent. of them who have alternative employment. That is due to the fact that the hours during which they work prohibit them from having any alternative employment. Some of the men who are threatened with dismissal as from the 1st April, have, I understand, upwards of thirty years' service in the employment of the Post Office. Now this scheme is contemplated in order to deal with the auxiliary staff, but I believe that this suggested economy on the part of the Government will have a very disquieting effect on the established staff. Has the Parliamentary Secretary taken into consideration the possibility that it may have so much of a disquieting effect on the established staff that a large number of them may take advantage of Article 10 of the Treaty and retire? Postal employees, such as postmen and sorters, are already overworked, and the fact that the service is to be reduced will cause them to be more overworked and will make them more discontented.
The Parliamentary Secretary stated to-day that he contemplated having a saving of £40,000 by reducing the postal services. Has he taken into consideration the fact that at present auxiliary postmen come under the Unemployment Insurance Act? This will mean that when these auxiliary postmen become unemployed they will be entitled to claim benefit from the Unemployment Insurance Fund. But according to the Insurance Act, a person is only entitled to one week's benefit for every six stamps on his or her card, with a maximum of six months in the one year. That will mean that after these men are dismissed, they will be entitled to draw unemployment insurance only for six months. After that, what is going to become of them? Seeing that these reductions are taking place in rural Ireland, the chances of these men securing other employment will be very remote. What is left for them, unless they are to be thrown on the rates? Although it has been suggested that £40,000 per annum will be saved by the reductions, I submit that it will only be a transfer of the burden from the shoulders of the Government directly on to the shoulders of the taxpayers and of the farmers.
Another aspect of the case that has to be taken into consideration is the fact that not alone are dismissals going to take place from the postal service, but that a number of auxiliary postmen are going to be reduced to the position of allowance carriers. I understand that that will mean a certain reduction in their rates of wages. It will also mean that they will not then be entitled to contribute to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, so that these men, who, as auxiliary postmen, had been contributing to the Fund for quite a long number of years, are going to be transferred to the position of allowance carriers; they cannot contribute to the Fund any more, and they will lose the contributions which they have paid into the Fund. This is a very important matter from the employees' viewpoint, and I think that it should be taken into consideration. We hear a good deal of talk from the Government at present regarding the improvement of rural industries, and in reply to a question of mine last week, the Minister for Lands and Fisheries stated that he hoped to carry out certain recommendations of the Gaeltacht Commission's Report which would have the effect of establishing certain industries in the Gaeltacht. I submit that this curtailment of the postal service will very detrimentally affect any improvements that the Minister or his Department might be able to effect in these rural industries. I suggest that it is mistaken policy for the Minister in his endeavour to balance his Budget, to reduce the postal service or to reduce the number of employees in the Post Office. I think that, had the Minister been sincere in his effort to balance his Budget, there are many other ways in which he could have made reductions in services without touching upon the postal service, but, as I have said, apparently it is the policy of the Government, when they are making any sweeping reductions, to reduce the standard of the lower paid classes of the community, instead of taking those classes which would be best able to bear the burden, and in this instance we find that it is the postal employees who are to fall victims of the axe of the Minister for Finance. I suggest that even yet it may not be too late to review the situation, and I suggest seriously to Deputies from rural constituencies that they will not be doing their duty unless they object to the reduction of postal services in rural areas and thereby prohibit the Minister for Finance from reducing Post Office employees and carrying into effect his refusal to continue to give to the farming community the same service as they have at present.
I want to add my voice to what has been said in connection with the curtailment of the postal service in the rural areas, and I want to say, at the outset, that in my opinion the record of the Government in their dealings with the public and with the Post Office servants has been rather an unhappy one altogether. Very shortly after the Government took over control in 1921 we had discontent in the Post Office, resulting in a strike, and during the whole time that Mr. Walsh was Minister for Posts and Telegraphs there was constant friction and constant interference with the position and the working conditions of these employees. That policy appears to be continuing, and it is an extraordinary coincidence that it should be continued under the control of Deputy Heffernan, who had been a very formidable critic here, as leader of another Party, of the reductions in and curtailments of the service that took place from time to time when he was a free-lance.
I am totally dissatisfied with the policy of the Department as exemplified in the replies to questions to-day. It appears to me that the general statement made in reply to questions on this subject to-day made the position a great deal worse than it actually was before that, because we have had a clear admission in the Parliamentary Secretary's statement that there was no regard for particular conditions in particular areas, that this is purely a sweeping-brush policy applied without the slightest regard to the consequences it will have in any area. I think that that is a lamentable mentality, and that it shows a lamentable lack of foresight in dealing with a question of this kind. This departure will have very unfavourable reactions in many parts of the country. In my own constituency it will seriously affect the fishing industry—and this is no exaggeration, not a mere statement casually made for the purpose of misrepresenting facts, or even for exaggerating the position. I took up two instances where this change will seriously affect the fishing industry in my constituency, and they formed the subject of a question to-day. It does not require any extraordinary intelligence to see the necessity for having up-to-date communications available for the people engaged in the fishing industry in a particular form—fish-curing stations, places where they have to get particulars of markets and other particulars that are necessary for them to do their work. Just in the casual, easy fashion in which this matter appears to have been decided in the Department, these interests are totally neglected when this decision was come to. In other parts of the area not alone will the people be dissatisfied with the changes indicated now, but for the last two or three years they have been continuously agitating for a restoration of the old service where it had been curtailed.
I do not agree with the argument that the Post Office should be run as a business proposition. gathering in the pounds, shillings and pence, and looking at the amount of business that is done. I think we ought to regard the Post Office in a different light from that, and my own view is that the Post Office service ought to be regarded in much the same way as we would regard the police force, or our educational system—as something that is indispensable, and that we need not necessarily measure by the amount of money that is taken over the counter and the amount of money that is spent in maintaining it. It will be no comfort to Deputy Heffernan to know that in various parts of the country members of the Farmers' Union are taking the lead in the protest against this change. I do not know whether he will be able to explain his attitude to them satisfactorily or not, but on this very day communications have reached us who represent West Cork from branches of the Farmers' Union, not alone asking that this change should not be made, but asking that the state of affairs that existed in many places before the change was contemplated should be improved. I do re-echo the hope that has been expressed, that it is not too late to review this whole policy in the light of the needs of the people, and in the clear knowledge that this change will inflict very great hardship on many people in the rural districts, and I am leaving out for the time being the question of the hardship that will be inflicted on people who have given the best years of their lives to the Post Office, and who are now faced with the alternative of a few shillings a week or nothing. I know a case of one man who had 25 years' service in the Post Office, whose wages will be taken away with one stroke of the pen, and he will be asked to get out, at this hour of his life, or otherwise to accept a few miserable shillings weekly. I do not think that should be the attitude of a responsible Government. That would be the attitude of the worst type of employer in any country, but it is certainly not worthy of a Department of State.
I want to say, in addition, that I view with nothing short of amazement the proposal to cut down the Land Commission Vote in the particular way in which it is to be cut down. I refer to the reduction in the Vote devoted to the improvement of estates, which will amount to £160,550. Our complaint here has been, and justly, that we think enough money has not been provided in that direction. Time and again, for the last twelve months, we have had questions on the Order Paper proposing that more money should be expended, and owing to the fact that no definite provision has been made to mitigate unemployment in rural constituencies, we have looked to money provided for the improvement of estates to provide the only means for relieving unemployment in these areas. In that connection I would like to say that I deprecate the continual use of the words, "relief works." I do not see any necessity for using those words as often as they have been used, and I do not see any reason why money could not be properly provided without any sense of degradation being put on anybody for works of this kind under the Land Commission or some other Department. I wonder does the Parliamentary Secretary know, or does the Minister for Lands and Fisheries know, the conditions that exist in many constituencies. I wonder if they have had an opportunity through their organisation of knowing what the actual position is. It is not a pleasant fact, either in this House, or on a public platform, to have to harp back on what we know is the position in our constituencies. It is very unpleasant, but it is certainly a task that cannot be shirked, more especially when we find that the tendency is to restrict the amount of money to be spent on works of improvement in these constituencies. It is a very reactionary departure, an unhappy departure, as I can see no prospect whatever in constituencies like mine of any security for the unemployed, other than the provision of a certain amount of money for the next five, six or ten winters, for works of improvement. Whether we decide money is to be devoted to that purpose or partly spent by the Land Commission on improvement work, there can be no doubt whatever that the necessity for spending the money exists. I want to protest as strongly as I can against the reduction in the Vote. I think that there is a case for an increase, and I speak from an intimate knowledge of conditions in my area. I disagree with the proposals with regard to the Post Office Vote and the Land Commission Vote, and I hope that dissent and disagreement from the course proposed will be made as strong as possible before a decision is taken on this Bill.
I protest against this economy with regard to the Post Office service. I call it sham economy, and nobody knows that better than the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. He knows quite well that the men who will be dismissed will be idle, and that in a few months they will be thrown back on the resources of the County Boards of Health. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that, as well as I do, and so do the farmers throughout the country. Where, then, does the economy come in? The money is taken out of one pocket and put into another, and that is what is called economy. I received a letter yesterday morning from a man in my constituency who is about to be dismissed on the 1st April. He has 24 years' service, is receiving 21/- weekly, and is the sole support of an invalid mother and a sister. What is going to become of these three people when he is dismissed? I call it nothing only callousness on the part of the Minister. I do not believe, if he took the advice of the responsible officials in his Department, that they would be a party to a further curtailment of these services. Everybody knows that, as far as the postal services in the rural areas are concerned, they have been cut down to a minimum, and that to cut them down below that minimum, which the Minister now proposes, is to bring us back to the state of the backwoodsman in America, who gets a letter once in six months, or perhaps once in twelve months. I call that the antithesis of progress. Does that mean that you are going to build up the State and that you are going to get a return from the State? Does that mean progress in the sense that we are looking forward to it in this country? You are taking away the wages of men who receive anything from 14/- 15/-, 21/- or 24/- a week and throwing them on the wayside, some of them after 30 years' service. I call that callous conduct on the part of a national Government, and I do not believe that the citizens of this country will stand for it. Apart altogether from the men, what about the services that these men rendered to the community? Why should the Post Office, a public utility department, be looked upon to pay its way, any more than the Civic Guard or, I might say, the Army? Postal officials are good servants of the community, and their services are required by the citizens of the State in order to carry on their business.
With regard to the Land Commission, I think the reduction there, too, is aimed at hitting the working man, especially those working in rural areas. The money spent in that way is the only means they had of getting a day's wages, and everybody looked forward to the breaking up of estates to provide such employment. That Vote has been reduced 50 per cent. That is another bright scheme of economy. Of course, most of those who will be affected will be thrown on the Boards of Health, and the ratepayers will again have to foot the bill. Where then does the economy come in? It is the same way with the Barrow drainage works. The money there has been reduced, I think, from £75,000 to £25,000. We have been clamouring for employment for seven years, but conditions are steadily getting worse year by year. We are supposed to have turned the corner in this country, to have come round in a circle, and to be coming out on top.
With Deputy Cassidy and Deputy Murphy, I appeal to the Minister to look into this matter again and to see whether he cannot stop this foolish economy. Put a stop to it, for goodness sake, and let the country have some chance of going ahead instead of pulling it back fifty years. I can see no reason, good, bad or indifferent, for this petty meanness.
I would like to know from Ministers whether the Government have any policy in connection with the relief of unemployment. The policy of the Parliamentary Secretary for Posts and Telegraphs will create further unemployment. In the rural areas people are going to be deprived of the postal facilities enjoyed by people in the towns, although they have to pay as much for their postage as those who reside in districts where the Chambers of Commerce and many big trade organisations have their power. In Wicklow, as a result of economy, the people have postal services only twice a week but, I suppose, under the new scheme they will have to call at the local post office after Church on a Sunday to get their letters.
I am surprised that the Minister for Local Government has not provided in his estimate a large sum of money to enable public authorities to build houses for the workers. The boards of health are faced with the responsibility of providing houses for agricultural labourers. In many instances where a labourer's cottage becomes vacant there are a dozen, and sometimes two dozen, deserving applicants. Still no provision is made by the Government to enable public bodies, by means of long term loans or otherwise, to get money to enable them to build houses for the workers. At present we have a housing scheme which does not make for economy owing to the small grants given to people to build. We have heard a good deal to-night about juries. Some of us who have had experience of being tried before juries have always wanted the prisoner to have the same rights as the State. In the Estimates the expenditure in regard to jurors is reduced by £2,000. Why is it reduced? In my constituency, at least, the valuation of the juror has been increased from £10 to £15, and in other counties it has increased from £10 to £20. Is it suggested that a man with £10 valuation will not give as true a verdict as a man with £15 or £20 valuation? Does it mean that you are to have juries confined to men of £20 valuation? If so, they will have to devote more of their time to the State as jurors. Under the Act a prisoner can only challenge five jurors, while the State can pack juries by objecting to any number until they get twelve men who, they think, will come to a verdict. I protest against the right taken away from men of £10 valuation. They are not to serve on juries, so that those who have to face juries will be tried by men drawn from the capitalist class.
In regard to the demobilisation of men from the Army, we have officers getting large gratuities and pensions, while the men, from sergeantmajors to privates, only get, at most, four weeks' pay, and are driven out on the roadside. I am surprised at the attitude of the unemployed and of the workers generally. People may say that we have turned the corner, but there are very few workers who believe that we have I believe that the time will come when, if nothing is done for the unemployed, and if the Government remains deaf to the appeals of men who represent the workers in this House, the workers, through their representatives here, will, as I said before, have to adopt a different attitude to that of a constitutional policy in order to remove their grievances and to improve their lot. At present, owing to the attitude of the Minister for Local Government in regard to economy, unemployed men are only given five shillings a week to maintain a wife and family.
The Deputy is making a statement which I would like him to elaborate. In what way is the Minister for Local Government interfering with the amount granted for relief?
Through the inspectors.
In what way?
In giving advice on grounds of economy to many members of boards of health to take away from the committees the right to say who is entitled to relief and who is not.
I think the Deputy should be more explicit. He stated that the amount granted in relief to certain people is restricted to five shillings, and that that is the result of the interference of the Minister for Local Government with the prerogatives of the boards of public assistance. I deny that, and I would like to get details concerning it.
I say that the inspectors of your Department—not in your time, but in the time of your predecessor—gave advice to members of boards of public health to take away from local committees the right of giving home help and to leave the matter solely in charge of the relieving officers who were ordered by the economists to give only five shillings a week.
Ordered by what economists?
I thought we were discussing economies in the Post Office.
I understood that I was in the position that I could discuss any matter in connection with the Vote.
If the Deputy were in that position he would realise that he could discuss any matter arising on any one of the Votes. The idea is that he can only discuss a question of principle, and that some important matters rather than details should be discussed. The matter which the Deputy is discussing could, apparently, arise on the Estimates for the Department of Local Government and Public Health. The administration of home help in the country is a very wide subject.
I was not aware that I was confined to discussing questions connected with the Post Office, but I accept your ruling.
I have allowed the Deputy to make his point.
I think I have done very well. Deputy Heffernan is very anxious to hear what some of us have got to say in connection with his new departure. I join with the other Deputies in protesting against the attitude adopted in the Post Office. It will create more unemployment in our midst. I certainly am prepared to join with any Party which is prepared to go further than we have been going for the last few years to try to redress some of the wrongs that exist amongst the unemployed. We have the same staff in the Head Office of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, the same number of inspectors, the same big salaries paid to men with £1,000 a year and bonus. They have not been attacked. As Deputy Cassidy stated, the Government has attacked the weakest men, the least paid men, and attacked a service for which Deputy Heffernan had sympathy two years ago—deliveries in the rural areas. It is very peculiar that when he is in power now he should be responsible for attacking services in the rural areas.
I have to add my complaint to those already expressed about the proposed curtailment of the postal services. Considering that it is accepted by everybody that agriculture is the main industry of the country, and also that Deputy Heffernan is the Parliamentary Secretary in charge of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs at the moment, and that he was leader of the Farmers' Party up to two years ago, it is certainly very hard to understand the mentality of the Government in this connection. It is accepted, as I said, that agriculture is the main industry of the country. One wonders how it is going to be developed in the way we would like to see it developed, if important facilities such as are provided in the Post Office, are going to be taken away from it. We have advocated, and will continue to advocate, that the Government should, at all times, make provision for unemployment, but we find that during the past two years the Government have not made any special provision for the unemployed. On the contrary, almost every step they are taking is responsible for creating more unemployment. During question time to-day Deputy Heffernan admitted that 1,000 men would be on the unemployed list in consequence of this drastic change.
That is not correct. I did not mention any number.
I thought the Deputy said between 800 and 1,000.
No; Deputy Davin said it.
I am sorry; I do not want to misquote the Deputy. He stated, at any rate, that the amount saved would be something in the vicinity of £40,000, and on a calculation, made by Deputy Davin, we are entitled to assume that that would be responsible for placing another 1,000 men on the unemployment list. The Parliamentary Secretary admits now that he does not know the number that is going to be disemployed. That, again, to our mind, shows the callous attitude of the present Government. They start off to try to economise without any regard whatever for the people who are unemployed in certain essential services in this country. As already pointed out by my colleagues, we do not think that the Post Office should be run as a business concern. The Post Office is a very essential service, just as essential as the Army or the Civic Guard, from which we get no monetary return, and we believe that it is absolutely necessary that facilities should be provided in the rural areas just as much as in the urban areas. The farmers are continually grumbling about the fact that, to their mind, they are being neglected, and I am inclined to agree that the farmers are not getting everything they should get.
I do not know whether I am strictly confined to dealing with the Post Office, but I would like to develop the argument in so far as the farmers are concerned. For the last month or so, an agitation has been going on amongst the different county councils with a view to getting a relief of rates. I certainly agree with the agitation from rural areas. I am prepared to admit that the de-rating proposals that have been brought into operation in England would perhaps not be suitable to this country, but I suggest to the Minister and the Government that something should be done to relieve the agricultural industry, and things of this kind, such as the proposals that are about to be carried out by Deputy Heffernan's Department, are certainly not going to be for the good of the industry.
Recently the Government, without consulting the county councils, have agreed to lower the valuations of the railway companies. I am not going to say that it was unnecessary to lower the valuations, in so far as the railway companies are concerned. What I object to is that without any consultation whatever between the Local Government Department and the county councils, a reduction in valuation was agreed to which is responsible for increasing the rates in the rural areas. There is a certain procedure laid down in the Public Bodies Order and in different Acts of Parliament which a person who wishes to have a decrease in valuation brought about should use. On this occasion, so far as the railway companies are concerned, that procedure was not adopted, and the Local Government Department agree to a reduction in valuation for the railways without the county councils being permitted to have anything at all to do with the matter. On the contrary, when the reduced valuation was submitted to the county councils, and when they protested against it and asked permission to appeal against the decision of the Valuation Officer, the Local Government Department flatly refused to allow them to do so. As I said, the railway companies may have been entitled to that reduction in valuation, but the least the county councils could expect would be that the Local Government Ministry would insist that the usual channels should be used in order to bring about that reduction and that the county councils should have been permitted to appeal against the decision. What does that mean? It means that the farmers, who are already overtaxed, in my opinion, are called upon to pay a higher rate in consequence of the reduction in valuation brought about on behalf of the railway companies by the Minister for Local Government. I do protest against the procedure adopted by the Minister in this connection.
There are other matters about which I would like to speak if you, A Chinn Chomhairle, will permit me to proceed. I would like to deal with the policy of the Government in so far as road-making is concerned. For some years past it has been the custom of the Government to give grants to local authorities for the making of roads. With the policy pursued for the past two years I am certainly in entire disagreement. The policy of the Government is that so far as main roads are concerned they are prepared to give a certain percentage of maintenance—I think it is thirty per cent.—but if a council intends to reconstruct a road the Government are not prepared to advance anything. I think that when a county or borough council are inclined to reconstruct a main road the Government ought to help. The Government are not prepared to come to the relief of the unemployed in the various areas all over the State, and if a council thinks it desirable to reconstruct a road for the dual purpose of providing a decent road and doing something for the unemployed, the Minister ought to come to the relief of the local ratepayers. The Wexford County Council put up a proposal to spend £4,000 on the reconstruction of a road. The surveyor told the council that in view of the particular work that was going to be done the life of that road would be about five years. We asked the Minister's Department at least to let us have the maintenance grant which would be equal to 30 per cent. for five years, but the Department absolutely refused. I urge the Minister to ask his Department to reconsider their policy in that direction. As far as housing is concerned, I certainly am very disappointed with the Bill placed in our hands to-day.
We may be discussing that Bill to-morrow.
All right. Coming back to the question of the postal services, I ask the Government to reconsider their proposals. We have had protests from the farming community from all over the country. The Wexford County Committee of Agriculture have passed a strong resolution protesting against this. I notice that Mr. Michael Doyle, ex-T.D., expressed himself as very much surprised at the attitude taken up by his late colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. I remember the time when the Parliamentary Secretary was very strong in his protestations against the way in which the rural community was being treated, in comparison with the urban community. He certainly expressed himself in very strong terms when dealing with the porterage to be paid on telegrams and the scanty provision made for the rural districts in regard to postal services. I ask the Government to consider the matter from the two points of view put forward —as to whether it is desirable to throw from 800 to 1,000 people into the ranks of the unemployed, and also to create a state of affairs in the rural districts which is not acceptable to the farming community.
Deputy Davin in speaking about the particular economy in the management of postal services referred to it as Deputy Heffernan's economy. I wish to point out that this economy is not Deputy Heffernan's economy, any more than any of the various other economies which are represented in the decreases in the various Votes, as shown in the Estimates. My support to it is given——
The Parliamentary Secretary says "My support to it," when it is really his proposal. He is the head of the Department, and is he disclaiming responsibility for it?
My support is given not to the economy in itself, but to the general economy scheme of the Executive Council, as voicing the opinion of the Government, as represented in the Estimates before the House. This economy, like every other economy, is excellent in theory, but very unpopular in practice. It is very easy for Deputies to give lipservice to economy, but it is quite another thing to expect these Deputies to stand over those economies, when they are proposed. I think, in a sense, that criticism of this economy and of the postal services is founded, to a certain extent, upon a misunderstanding of the whole situation. It appears to me that before a Deputy or a citizen can have a proper realisation of the service which he is entitled to get from the Post Office, he must give some thought to, and have some knowledge of, the history and growth of postal services in this country. It must be well known to anybody who thinks about it that the postal service here was, up to the time of the Treaty, a sectional part of the general postal service applying to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and that on that account we were entitled to get, and were getting, services on a par with the services granted to the various shires and provinces in England. It was possible for the British Post Office, because of the immense and thickly - populated industrial and manufacturing areas which they were serving, to render services to the rural areas of Great Britain and Ireland which, in themselves, were being run at a loss, but which were covered by the general amount in excess of expenditure which was being got from the postal services in the thickly - populated manufacturing areas. When the postal service was turned over to the Government of this country, following the Treaty, it was found, in the first year of the existence of the Free State, that the postal service resulted in a loss of approximately £1,200,000, which meant, in effect, that the postal service of the Free State had been subsidised up to the time of the Treaty to the extent of that amount.
Of course it became obvious to those responsible for the administration that it would be quite impossible, in the financial condition which would apply ordinarily in this country, to continue a service which would permanently result in a loss of that amount, or even of a smaller amount, with the result that a general scheme of reorganisation, retrenchment and economy was commenced. Considerable economies were effected, only a very small part of which consisted of retrenchment in rural services. Eventually the total loss on the postal service was brought down to the comparatively small amount of £264,000, as reflected in the commercial accounts of the Post Office for the year 1927-28. I explained, on the occasion of the Post Office Estimate, that the officials of the Post Office had come to the conclusion that, as far as internal reorganisation and economies were concerned, we were coming very close to the end of our tether, and that if we were to have any future economies, they could only be achieved by the cutting of services, and that was the situation with which we were faced this year.
Before I go on to explain our attitude with regard to the particular economies that are being effected, I should mention that the service rendered to the rural areas which are part of the general services the Post Office is rendering, have, as a whole, been always unremunerative. Taking it as a whole, the amount of revenue which is got from the actual stamps borne upon letters delivered in the rural areas and attributing the full amount of the postage value of those stamps to the rural areas, there would still be a loss on the total service that we are rendering when we compare the value of the stamps with the cost of the deliveries. There would be a still greater loss if you took into account the actual revenue which would be properly attributable to the rural arm of the service, having deducted from the total amount the value of the other services that would be rendered in connection with the transfer and delivery of letters and parcels between the times of postage and delivery to the inhabitants of the rural areas. So it was evident that deliveries in the rural areas had been run at a loss. Taking them as a whole, or taking each individual service, the great majority of them had been administered at a loss.
As I said in my opening statement the problem with which we were faced, when it came to making cuts in the Post Office, was not quite the problem of dealing with this particular cut in itself, but the problem of dealing with the whole question of economies and retrenchments necessary in order to avoid fresh taxation. The particular service rendered in the rural areas is undoubtedly a social amenity of considerable importance to those living in those areas. It is a service which is appreciated and which if taken away in part will cause a considerable amount of inconvenience and a great deal of annoyance and some hardship. But the officials of my Department who, after all, are thoroughly conversant with the working of the Post Office service, are satisfied that the particular economies we are effecting by reducing the rural services of six day deliveries to three deliveries per week will not have the effect of interfering with or hampering the business activities of those living in those areas.
What about rural industry?
May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary do his departmental heads agree with his policy in this particular matter?
I need not tell the Deputy that when it came to effecting economies of this kind—thoroughly unpopular economies—we in the Post Office Department were prepared to look for every possible internal economy before giving approval to this particular retrenchment.
How does the Parliamentary Secretary stand over the loss which was made in the handling of newspapers?
I am coming to that. Deputy Davin has his solution, and that is that we should increase the postal rates on every form of postal package passing through the Post Office.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary point out one single incident of any reduction in salary of persons with £800 a year or over, or in regard to the bonus of persons with salaries of £800 a year or over it?
Deputy Davin is aware that the postal service is governed to a very considerable extent by international convention, and that we are obliged to receive and deliver, free of charge, various postal packets, parcels excepted, that come from outside the country. Other countries reciprocate in that way. If we were to increase the internal charges for postal packages other than letters the effect would be, in our estimation, that the number of printed papers that pass through the Post Office at a cheaper rate would lessen to such an extent in this country that any effect of the increased charges would be lost by the lesser amount of postage, while, at the same time, we would be obliged to take and deliver free of charge printed paper packages, newspapers, and other things coming from outside countries and bearing a low rate of postage. We would be obliged, according to international regulations, to deliver these free of charge. We are satisfied in the Post Office that the change suggested by Deputy Davin would not produce extra revenue, and might actually cause loss of revenue.
Is it right for a free trade newspaper to expect the taxpayers to subsidise the handling of that paper?
A similar argument applies to Press telegrams. If the charge for Press telegrams were increased in this country we estimate the effect would be that revenue would actually be lost instead of being increased. The tendency in recent years is for the Press to use only its private wires. A great amount of matter passes over their private wires instead of coming to the Post Office public wires, with the result that the revenue from Press telegrams is constantly decreasing, and it is possible that if the charge for Press telegrams were increased we would lose more revenue still.
It having been decided that this economy is to be carried out, Deputies on the Labour Benches are, naturally, anxious, and I quite appreciate their anxiety, in view of those whom they represent, to know by what methods we intend to carry out the economy. I explained, in answer to questions asked to-day, that it is our intention, so far as we can regulate it, to arrange that the economy should be carried on with the least possible hardship to Post Office employees whose services will have to be dispensed with. It would be unwise to lay down any hard and fast rule in this case. If Labour Deputies examine into the case and give it careful attention, they will probably see that if we were to lay down any very hard and fast regulations, as to who is to go and who is not, it would result in a great many cases of hardship. Consequently we are prepared, subject to certain general regulations, to leave the matters, to a certain extent, in the hands of the local postmasters, their action being subject to the final sanction of headquarters here and my sanction of the final issue. As a rough indication of what our intentions are in that regard, I might say that the length of service given by the particular post office servant will be taken into account in the first place, and that as a general rule the last man to arrive will be the first man to go. I do not say this will be laid down as a hard and fast rule. There may be cases where there would be a greater hardship in letting the last man who arrived go than in letting a man go who had joined the Post Office before him. Domestic and financial circumstances will have to be taken into account; also the possibility of obtaining employment, or the question of whether the particular man dispensed with has already part-time employment which would be useful to him in the event of his services being dispensed with.
The point has been made here that a certain number of auxiliary and part-time postmen will have their services dispensed with, and estimates have been made by the Deputies on the Labour Benches. I pointed out in my answer to a question to-day that it is not at this stage possible to forecast accurately the number of men who will be dispensed with, for the reason that the number dispensed with depends, to a certain extent, on the recommendations made by the local postmaster. I am certain that the estimate of 1,000 is an over-estimate. I am inclined to think that we are hardly likely, from the information we have departmentally, to dispense with the services of more than 700 men. That, in itself, I recognise, is a very serious matter, and for that reason, in addition to the other reason as to the effect it will have, I was very reluctant indeed to give my support to this economy. I want to point out that the unemployment that will be caused by this particular action on the part of the Government is not so serious as other forms of unemployment that will be caused. The auxiliary postman is only a part-time worker, and, as a matter of fact, it is understood, and I believe it is part of the agreement entered into by the auxiliary postman when entering the service, that they have employment other than that which they are getting in the Post Office.
It is not 10 per cent.
We do not know the percentage, but certainly quite a number of them have employment and will be able to find employment other than that which they already held.
Is it intended to give any compensation whatever to these postmen? I have one case in mind, a postman in Ballinacurragh, Midleton, with thirteen years' service, enjoying the noble sum of 9/6 a week, who has now been dismissed.
They are not entitled to any compensation.
The Parliamentary Secretary has made a statement. Has the Parliamentary Secretary quite clear information that the men whose services are likely to be dispensed with will not have claims under the Wigg and Cochrane case?
My claim is that those men are not entitled to compensation. I cannot go any further than that. Deputy Murphy and others are interested in particular industries and they wondered if we have taken into account the effect of this economy on certain industries, particularly on the fishing industry along the coast. I want to point out that having decided to curtail all the six day frequencies in the rural areas over the country it is not possible to start making an exception. To carry out this scheme in its entirety we have to see that all the six day rural deliveries are reduced to three days. I do not want at this stage to hold out any great hope that there will be a possibility of having some of those services which will be reduced, later on increased to the old frequency of six days, because undoubtedly if the public think, by making representations to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, that they can prevent the economies from taking place, we would be inundated by such a number of applications that it would be quite impossible to deal with them, but I can say to Deputy Murphy, and others who are interested in particular industries which they claim would be hard hit by the economies now to be effected, that when the scheme is in working operation and we understand all the reactions which will take place from the scheme, then it might be possible to give consideration to exceptional cases. But they would have to be very exceptional cases, and strong cases would have to be made in their favour.
Deputy Everett, I think, referred to the fact that we are effecting these particular economies altogether at the expense of rural areas, and effecting no economies at the expense of urban areas. That is largely the case. There are practically no economies in this scheme being effected at the expense of the urban areas, and the reason is that we are of opinion that the economies that will be effected in the rural areas will not have the effect of causing a loss of revenue to the Post Office. Economies that would cause a loss of revenue would not be economies at all. We hold the opinion, and expect it will be confirmed by later developments, that this particular economy, despite the inconvenience, annoyance and hardship it will cause, will not cause a loss to revenue. But we do hold that economies in the urban areas, reductions in the deliveries there, would have the effect of causing a loss of revenue, and that, therefore, the economies would not be economies at all.
That is a rather amazing statement from the leader of the Farmers' Party here.
Some mention has been made here of the fact that I, in the past, have constantly advocated the extension to the rural areas of postal services which were enjoyed by the urban areas. I am fairly confident that my conscience is clear in that matter, because I am confident if I had committed myself to a statement of that kind that the various Deputies, Deputy Davin especially, would have taken pains to hunt up the particular statement, and the fact that those statements have not been produced is evidence in itself that I have not, at any time, expressed the opinion that rural areas are entitled to the same services as urban areas.
If I were to read the Deputy's speeches it would take too long.
I fully realise that this particular economy is going to cause a considerable amount of annoyance, inconvenience and hardship in the rural areas. I am satisfied that it is not going to affect adversely the business carried on in those areas. I am also satisfied that in the course of time the people in those areas will readjust themselves to the Post Office services in such a way that they will not feel the particular hardships which are being imposed on them by this measure. The effect of this particular economy, with the other economies which are being carried out in the Post Office services this year, will be that we will get the losses on the Post Office down almost to bedrock. We will bring the financial position of the Post Office to such a state that revenue will go very near balancing expenditure. I anticipate when the Commercial Accounts applicable to the coming financial year will be published, that the losses on the Post Office service as a whole will not be much greater than £100,000.
The policy of the Government in regard to the Post Office Department, as laid down for those in charge of it, is that efforts must be made to bring the Department to the position where revenue will balance expenditure. I anticipate, once these cuts are made and other retrenchments are carried out, with anything like a general improvement in agriculture and in industrial conditions in the country, that the general revenue of the Post Office will increase, and as it increases it will bring us close, if not right down to the actual balancing of our Post Office budget. Then, having established the Post Office once and for all on a business basis. and having, as they have in England, a surplus rather than a deficit, it will be for us to develop and extend the Post Office services, and enlarge the rural services in accordance with the capacity of the Department and with the revenue which we then hope to enjoy.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary inform me if he can make any arrangement with the Minister for Lands by which those six day notices from the Land Commission will be extended, considering that the six days will probably have expired by the time the notices reach the farmer? I would like also if the Parliamentary Secretary would inform me, if when he was considering these economies, he did not think it better policy to start with the £693,000 war bonuses which the Department is paying rather than throwing 700 men out of employment. Would it not be better policy?
rose.
I understood that this matter was concluded.
I was not here.
The Deputy cannot blame me for that.
rose.
Is the Deputy going to continue on the question of the Post Office?
Not exactly.
I would like to receive an answer from the Parliamentary Secretary.
I feel that on the Central Fund Bill we should have some scheme by which we could conclude separate topics. I understood there was another topic to be raised this evening.
T. Mac Maoláin
Tá cupla poinnte agam. Táim ag feitheamh.
Tá an Teachta déanach leis an gcúpla poinnte, sin, is boaghalach. I think Deputies will recognise that in this kind of debate we shall have to have an arrangement by which a particular topic can be raised and concluded some time, so that we can then pass on to another. I assumed that the Parliamentary Secretary was concluding. If this matter is going to be threshed out again, with another conclusion by the Parliamentary Secretary, I do not know when we are going to get to the other topics. It is purely a matter of arrangement. It appears to be the most sensible arrangement that we should conclude on particular topics. If Deputies do not happen to be present when a particular topic is being discussed, they can hardly expect, when the matter has been concluded, to start all over again.
I would be very brief, as usual.
It is not a question of the Deputy's brevity, but if he starts the thing over again I will not be able to control the debate.
I thought you desired that the debate should be continued?
I understood Deputy Moore was going to raise a different subject.
That is so.
That is why I was anxious to hear Deputy Moore.
I shall only say, with regard to the debate which has just concluded, that it is no great surprise to us that the Government, finding themselves compelled to effect economies, should make an attack on the lowest paid and the least secure Government employees. Their policy seems to be to recognise vested interests in everything except where the poor man is concerned. They recognise vested interests in the transferred officers; they recognise vested interests in landlords. Even though nobody suggests interfering with the payment to the landlords, because a certain agitation is going on the Government Party avails of the opportunity to print an advertisement calling those who are in favour of that agitation robbers and swindlers, and people who would deny their just debts, and so on like that. The Government recognise vested interests in the R.I.C. They recognise vested interests in those who had their property destroyed prior to 1921 and subsequent to 1921. But the man who has given the best years of his life to the mere simple duty of carrying the post has no vested interests of any kind. Apparently, he is to be kicked out and trampled upon. They recognise vested interests in the railways, but the unfortunate man who, having no other means of employment, and seeing the Government obviously encouraging road services during the past few years, contracted liabilities to motor bus manufacturers and people like that, is going to be shown that he has no vested interest. He is going to get short shrift within the next month or two. That is the Government policy of being fair to all parties. That is the Government that is roused to indignation by the immorality of those who agitate in favour of the legal position regarding the land annuities being retained in the country, and who agitate in favour of its being recognised and made a definite national policy. We consider that this Post Office matter could be very easily solved if there was a proper policy with regard to communications generally. We think that before such a drastic measure as the dismissal of all those postmen and the curtailment of valuable services was undertaken the Government might very well have considered whether they could not have done something to reorganise the communications of the country, taking all forms of transport and Post Office together. That will have to be done some time, and what we are very much concerned about is whether the Government have any policy on the subject.
We have appealed again and again for some statement from the Government on the question of transport policy and have got no reply. I think the furthest the Minister for Industry and Commerce has gone is to say that the time has not yet arrived. The time has not yet arrived to do anything but to destroy in this country, to drive people out of employment, to destroy their enterprise and drive them into bankruptcy. That is apparently the only policy of the Ministers at the present time. It is quite apparent that the country wants some guidance as to whether those who control the affairs in the country are going to co-ordinate or to reorganise the transport services that are at present in competition. Notwithstanding that we have voted and approved of the spending of millions for the purposes of road transport, we have never been told what the aim of that expenditure is. Is it as a rival system of transport to the railways, is it a supplementary system, or is it merely for the sake of having roads for tourists, or what is it for? I only know that some £6,000,000 have been spent on roads during the past few years, but as to whether these roads that have been partly reconstructed can be maintained from the Road Fund, and further, when the roads require further reconstruction, whether money will be available for that work, we have no information.
I do not think anybody is satisfied that the money that has been spent has been well spent. I do not think that anybody is satisfied that the full amount of work that could have been done with that money has been done, that the work that has been done was done at the least possible expense, or that it was done with a view to economic maintenance in the future. I have before me a statement by a leading roads engineer, in which he remarks: "If we do not safeguard our waterbound macadam roads the necessity for further capital expenditure may go beyond our resources." And in another sentence he remarks: "When increased traffic causes this breaking point to be reached, capital expenditure becomes necessary to provide a new surface of a higher grade. You will find byroads break up under the traffic of a few 5-ton lorries a day. Waterbound macadam roads, tar sprayed, costing, say, £1,000 a mile, will break up at a certain stage of traffic and must be resurfaced with a material costing £3,000 a mile." Yet under the Roads Department the bulk of the roads that have been constructed or improved have been done with waterbound macadam, and there is thus the prospect in the immediate future that these waterbound roads will require further improvement at a cost of £3,000 a mile.
We are in the same position with regard to the working of the Railways Act of 1924. We have no idea when it will be fully implemented. We have no idea whether it will ever prove workable. We know that certain little items in connection with it have been settled. We know, for instance, that the Railway Tribunal has been idle for the past twelve months because of some legal decision which is pending, but we have no means of ascertaining whether that expensive department is doing any work during that time or whether it has the power to go on until this question is settled. It has fixed, I believe, the amount of standard revenue at practically £4,000,000. That is the revenue that is to be obtained by the Railways Company in a normal year. It has fixed the standard expenditure, and it has yet to face the problem of standard charges. Well, the country is very little interested in fixing the standard revenue and in fixing the standard expenditure. It is very much interested in the fixing of standard charges, and when they are to be reached goodness only knows.
While all this playing with the subject is going on, those who have to send their produce to the market are paying charges that are eating up every penny of profit on the goods they produce. We heard a lot here last week from a number of Deputies about the terrible burden that tariffs would be on the farmers and other producers and how they would raise the cost of living, and all that. Yet since I came in here I have never heard one Deputy complain about the terrible burden imposed on producers by forcing them to bear the expense of two or three rival systems of transport, nor did I hear it suggested that at least an effort should be made to combine or co-ordinate these systems so that the country would get some advantage out of them.
It appears unlikely that the standard revenue will ever be obtained. Last year they got only 74 per cent. of the standard revenue which was fixed. With no likelihood of passenger traffic or miscellaneous traffic increasing in the future, and with the possibility that in spite of high taxation, and so on like that, there will still be a good deal of merchandise traffic conveyed by road, it is obvious that there must be an enormous increase in goods traffic before the standard revenue can be raised. The 74 per cent. is 26 per cent. away from the amount fixed by the Railway Tribunal. It looks as if a great many years will have to elapse before even that revenue can be reached at the present charges, and presumably the Railway Tribunal will have to take into account, when fixing standard charges, that there is no immediate prospect under the present charges of that revenue being attained. Consequently, instead of the reduction of charges anticipated under the 1924 Act being effected, we may expect an increase in the standard charges. That is not a pleasant prospect for the Government or for the country. It is, I submit, worthy of a little more attention than is being given to it.
It may be a very convenient thing for the Government to adopt a policy of drift, to say: "We will put a mileage tax on buses, because that will give the company with the biggest resources and the biggest capital behind it a chance of eating up all the smaller concerns. We are not worried about the individuals who have put their capital into those bus services." It may be very convenient for a Government to say that it will bring about such a position that instead of having a number of competing services they will have just one big motor road service in the country, and the problem of dealing with all transport will be so much more simple. I submit that is not statesmanship. It is not fair to the country to adopt an attitude like that. I am not merely presuming it is the attitude of the Government, because it has been openly stated to be their attitude. I think that the subject is important enough to deserve more attention and more sympathetic handling than is conveyed in the message which has gone out from the Government. We hold that there is no room for competition in transport in this country. The Minister of Transport in England has laid it down that there is no room for competition in that country. If that can be said of a country that has gloried in free competition, where the idea of Free Trade has been a sort of religion of the people, I think that in a little country like this it is evident that the same principle should be a fundamental truth.
Our position is that we think the Government are very much to blame for having allowed road services to grow up free of control. Last year the Minister for Finance when he was delivering his Budget speech mentioned the nuisance of vested interests in connection with any reform. He said in effect that they offer a big stumbling block when a reform has to be faced. We urged in that connection that he should not allow the development of vested interests on the roads and that it was time for him to act in that respect. Yet he took no notice of the suggestion, and within the past twelve months numbers of poor people have invested their all in transport services on the roads. The Minister is now going to deal with them in a manner that will, I admit, effectually dispose of them, but at what a cost to those concerned. We think it is time that this problem was faced. We hold that rail and road should be linked up; instead of it being rail versus road it should be rail plus road. Road services should be genuinely controlled in the interests of the people, and the State should seize the opportunity afforded in giving a monopoly to the Railways Company of this service to get a definite share in the control of the transport services in return for that privilege. That could be done without injustice to the people working at present on the roads; without injustice to anybody, in fact.
Within the past few weeks the Government have allowed another interest to spring up that is obviously going to impede any development of that kind. Notwithstanding that they apparently recognise that the development of great numbers of competing road interests was going to be a big barrier in the reorganisation of the transport system, the Government have looked on at the Great Northern Railway Company starting a road business and they have taken no action. If they find in the next year or two that a monopoly of road transport is an essential thing, we shall see whether they will treat the Great Northern Railway Company as they propose to treat some of the small men who are trying to make a living from road services at the present time. I hardly think they will. It would be very unlike their policy if they did so. If the Government are not prepared to take some action in the matter, I suggest then, since they have invited Germans, Belgians, Czecho-Slovakians and French to perform certain services in this country, they should in this matter of road transport also invite the co-operation of foreigners. If they are not able to tackle this problem, there is no reason why they should not invite a foreign country to reorganise the transport services for them. Italy seems to have the most progressive system in the world, and if Lord Craigavon agrees and sees nothing sinister in it, it would not be a bad thing if the Italians came here and undertook the reorganisation of our transport services.
I have an extract here from a report on the development of the transport system in Italy from which it will be seen that that country is not taking the problem of transport in the same easy-going, happy-go-lucky way that the Saorstát is taking it. The extract says: "The most serious problem of all concerned the State railways, which, for many years, had shown a heavy deficit. The first task, therefore, was to make the railway administration a financially independent body, with its own separate balance sheet. Next came the realisation that State railways should be run, primarily, for the benefit of the nation and its economic progress. This appreciation of the true functions of a State railway undertaking brought about a drastic re-arrangement of tariffs, an improvement in goods and passenger services, acceleration of electrification schemes, the relaying of main lines with heavier rails, the conversion of single line to double tracks"—not the conversion of a double track to a single line, as is going on here—"the erection of new stations in thickly-populated towns ...and, finally, the construction of entirely new railway systems." That seems a policy that has a little bit more vigour in it than the policy of the Saorstát Government.
I seriously suggest if our Ministers are unable to face it themselves, and since nobody else in the country could face it, if the present Ministers do not—it would be unthinkable that there would be other people in the country capable—it might be no harm to ask the Italians to face the problem. While all this drift is going on thousands of men are being dismissed from their employment, and the position of the Railways Company can hardly be held to be so secure that it can be left to work out its own future. It is a Company that can only pay one per cent. by neglecting what the Chairman calls the most urgent work. That Railways Company cannot be held to be in a very sound position, or to be a credit to the country of which it is the main transport system. At the meeting of the Company the other day, reviewing the need for more spending on the railway, the Chairman said: "The following things could not be done owing to the lack of capital:—(1) Reconstruction of workshops at Inchicore, and this is dependent on economic conditions being satisfactorily adjusted. (2) The standardisation of locomotives. There are at present, including those taken over following amalgamation, 91 classes of narrow gauge engines in use, many of which are quite unsuitable for the work now required. (3) Re-arrangement and grouping of terminals which would lead to more economic working and therefore cheaper travelling for the public. (4) Road transport Money is also required to co-ordinate road and railway services and extend on lines beneficial to both. (5) The hotels, which are at present quite inadequate to deal with the annual increase in tourist traffic. To these many similar schemes might be added."
Obviously, a company that is only paying one per cent. by the skin of its teeth cannot hope to raise capital for things of that kind. It would seem, therefore, that the outlook for the principal railway system of the country is anything but healthy. At the same time, there is genuine alarm throughout the country at the policy of reducing double-track lines—for instance, such an important line as that to Galway—to single-track lines, but apparently the public have no power whatever to interfere in that matter. The decision of the Railway Tribunal, I think, was that it was not a matter that came under their jurisdiction. The changing of double-track lines to single-track may have the most serious consequences for the country and for an ambitious town like Galway. Yet the public have no power to interfere; they can only look on, notwithstanding that a change back might be a very expensive and difficult item. Although many people who have studied the question and have taken full account of the railway case, people such as the leaders of the most important business of the country from the export point of view—I refer to the cattle trade—are all genuinely alarmed at this state of things, they have no power whatever to say a word on the subject.
It can hardly be claimed that the Minister, in passing his 1924 Act, did a very successful or useful thing when he left the position in that way with regard to such a very important and drastic change as the singling of a double-track line—in the position that not only the public but himself are helpless unless he brings in legislation and gets it passed here. While that is the position, it can hardly be said that the 1924 Act has been entirely successful or that it is going to do much for the transport system of the country. I think everyone has seen the cattle traders' figures as to the tremendously increased charges that they are subject to for the conveyance of cattle exported. Under present conditions when prices are so strictly competitive for cattle and every other product of the farmer, it is obvious that any economy that can be effected in transport would be a valuable thing for this country. Again I say that it is very remarkable that, while there is so much concern, so much genuine pity for the poor farmer in having to bear terrible tariffs, the terrible burden that will be imposed on him by having to wear Irish clothes, there is not the same pity shown for him while he has to bear transport charges that are more than 200 per cent. above what he had to pay in 1914—transport charges which, in many cases, take the last shilling of profit that he makes in producing cattle or food for export.
I do not expect, to tell the truth, any reply from the Government Benches. It is their usual attitude not to give us any information on this subject except such information as is conveyed in a derisive sentence. We, however, think it is our duty to call attention to the unsatisfactory position, and to say that it calls for the attention of the legislature. It calls for immediate attention. We are prepared to act on any Committee that may be set up to suggest a scheme for combining and reorganising the present services with a view to getting the best possible results out of them. We are prepared to give any help that we can in the matter.
With regard to road policy, we think that at least there should be some definite statement as to the experience of the Government in connection with expenditure under this head during the last five or six years. We have had no statement from the Government as to what their experience has been on such questions as: How long these roads will hold; what are we putting ourselves in for in the way of maintenance expenses in connection with the roads that are being constructed at present under the two million loan of two years ago; or what the maintenance expenses will be in regard to any roads constructed in the future. The Government has had five or six years to examine into the problem. We think it is due to the Dáil that they should give us some information as to what is in their minds on the subject of transport generally, and particularly with regard to the road question.
We are glad to see money being spent on the roads, because in present circumstances it gives a good deal of employment and is a valuable thing for numbers of poor men who have no other way of making a living. But we are entitled to information as to how much of the money spent in the last five or six years has gone to labour, how much in materials obtained from within the country, and how much on materials imported from abroad. That, however, is only a technical part of the general question. If there is any Minister present who is prepared to give the information, we would like to know whether the Government propose to allow the present condition of affairs with regard to transport generally to drift along in the same aimless fashion, the same fearfully expensive fashion, and the same cruel fashion, from the point of view of those employed in the transport business, as has been the case during the past five or six years?
I do not know whether it is proposed to have a general debate on the railway question, but I would like to say to Deputy Moore that it is anything but a pleasure to the railway company to get rid of the services of any of their employees, and it causes them as much pain to do so as it does to the men who have to be disemployed. The Deputy spoke of Italy's trouble in coping with the ever-increasing development of trade there. The great Southern Railways are not doing that, unfortunately. They are not coping with an ever-increasing trade. Last year it was hoped that the decline in railway traffic, both passenger and goods, had reached bedrock, but this year the position is much worse, compared with the corresponding period so far, than it was last year. I have only to repeat that the dismissal of any railway employee gives just as much pain to the railway company as it gives to Deputy Moore or anyone else.
I wish to add my voice to that of the Labour Party regarding the reduction in the rural postal services.
I do not know whether the Deputy was in the House at the time or not, but I understand the Ceann Comhairle ruled that the debate on the Post Office service had finished.
I also wish to mention a few other things. I have been forestalled on the question of transport by Deputy Moore. Arising out of an answer to a question of mine last week regarding the rates of transport in the Saorstát, Northern Ireland and Great Britain, it was pointed out that the figures showing the conditions were entirely in favour of the farmers of Northern Ireland and Great Britain. They are also receiving favourable treatment in de-rating. The farmers here are very badly treated in the matter of the cost of the upkeep of roads. There are contributors to the Exchequer in parts of Ireland who have never stood upon a £2,500 mile road in their lives. They do not know what it is, but still they have to contribute to the upkeep of such a road. In any future scheme of control of roads or transport the Government should take into account that these people derive no benefit from these very costly roads. The only benefit they receive is from fourth or fifthclass roads. It is all very well for Ministers to smile at that. If they had to eke out an existence, as perhaps better men have to do in the backward areas—and they need not smile at my making the comparison, for they are better men, both nationally and individually, physically and mentally, though they have not had the opportunities of some of the people that came to the surface by accident in this country —they would understand the position of these men. These people are deserving of consideration in any Government scheme for transport. I say this Vote should not be passed without consideration being given to the poor as well as to the rich. The poor are being treated unfairly in being made to pay for transport that is only of second or third-rate value to them.
With reference to Deputy Moore's comments regarding the cattle export trade, I may say, speaking on behalf of those engaged in the business, that we appreciate what has been done for that trade. I want to pay a tribute to the Minister for Agriculture and to his officials for what has been done by them in connection with this matter. I can speak with experience of the cattle trade, for I and my people have been engaged in it for over forty years, and I must say that I greatly appreciate the work of the Minister for Agriculture. I had a letter recently from a farmer in Scotland with whom I do business, and he said that the cattle exported from this country had improved by 100 per cent., and for that, too, we are indebted to the Minister for Agriculture.
I am interested in this Vote on the question of transport, and in the suggestion that in order to balance our Budget in the next year, and not merely to balance our financial Budget but our Budget of the repair and disrepair of roads, and so on, we are going to add another tax to the country. It seems to me that this £7,000,000 which we are now taking out of the Central Fund represents an amount of money which will have to be, to use that blessed word, "implemented" by an extra tax before we can survive during the coming year on roads. I am of opinion that the two systems of transport are essential in this country, and that the bus traffic, not merely in taking traffic from the railways but in actually creating traffic which never did exist before, and which never could have existed, proves that this service which was extemporised was in itself a latent necessity, and that in its existence it is filling a real and inevitable need. The buses, I think, have carried, roughly, twenty million people in the last year. I myself, though a director of a railway and a shareholder in a railway, have from the actual convenience which I have found from that transport in many cases, used it in preference to the facilities for which I had already paid, and found from it value of an extreme character. Some days ago I wanted to go from my own house to Limerick. I was anxious to get to Limerick and back as quickly as possible. I found that by bus I could get into Limerick nearly two hours before I could get there by the existing railway service.
Now, remember that that is a real service in that particular case, linking up the two principal southern towns; and the fact that an extemporised bus service was in a position to put me in Limerick two hours before that existing central railway system could do it suggests either of two things, either that the existing railway service was not performing adequately the function of internal transport, or, if it was adequately performing that service, having regard to the financial consideration, it was leaving a gap which had to be filled, and which called out to be filled, by this auxiliary traffic. Not only did I get to Limerick two hours before I could have got there on the railway system connecting the two principal southern towns, but I got back from Limerick to Cork almost before I could have left Limerick by train, and the total cost of getting to Limerick and getting back, with any expenses I had in Limerick, was less than the third class fare upon that railway system. Now, I give you that merely as one individual example, to show that that bus system is fulfilling a definite need, and has made internal communication in this country possible at a price and with a degree of convenience which the existing system could not do or did not do, and which, frankly, I am prepared to say, as far as I have been able to examine the problem, did it with an efficiency which, having regard to financial considerations, the existing railway system could not do.
Against that you have the fact that the bus system, however developed, cannot completely substitute, in our existing economy at any rate, the railway system. For heavy goods, as long as we exist as we do now, it will be necessary to have a railway system. Therefore the proposition that I am putting to the House is that these two systems must co-exist, as far as we can understand it. Therefore the ramp, in so far as it is a ramp, against the bus system is unjustified. The bus system can show that it is doing definite work, work which could not otherwise be done, and that it constitutes a valuable social service in this country. The second consideration that we have to deal with in relation to the buses is this, that owing to their weight and speed, and owing to the primitive condition of our roads, a primitive condition which was dictated by previous economic circumstances and by the particular user of the road. those bus services are doing very definite and in some cases very extraordinary damage. I have had experience of roads with which I was very familiar, both before and after the running of bus services, and I can say that the effect of bus traffic upon our roads, as at present built, is immediately visible. There is no use whatever in any advocates of that system, however much they appreciate the value of the service which it is doing, minimising in any way the effect that that user of the road is doing definite, real, and very considerable financial damage to the road system of this country.
In approaching the suggestion that our existing finances are not in a position to deal with that damage and that extra taxation must be put upon those buses for that purpose, I think that matter should be quite frankly emphasised. It does not matter how much tax is put upon bus or lorry traffic, up to the point at which that user of the road replaces all the communal damage which he does; it does not matter what the amount of tax or the contribution which the State exacts from that service: unless and until it has replaced the communal damage it has done, it does not represent taxation but restitution. No one for private profit is entitled to do damage to public services and public utilities, and up to the point at which they do replace the actual damage of that user, the State is fully entitled to take that contribution from them, and in failing to take that contribution from them it does an injustice to other users of State facilities. The question, however, as to whether or not this damage to the roads is to be used as an excuse for an increase of taxation——
The Deputy is not entitled to discuss taxation on this Bill.
No, sir; all we are concerned with at the moment is the fact that we are taking money out of a fund which, to the common knowledge of the House, is estimated not to be sufficient to replace that damage over the period.
I am afraid that the Deputy cannot argue that. The question of increased taxation on buses will not arise on this Bill, but will arise later.
In this particular £7,000,000 there is already included the share for the period of all existing motor taxation.
I do not think so. Would the Deputy point out where it is?
It is coming out of the Central Fund, is it not?
Not this.
The seven millions?
No, I do not think so.
It had to come from somewhere before it got in there. Perhaps the President has succeeded in extemporising £7,000,000? We are familiar with his amazing ability as an economist. He once succeeded in proving by one plus x plus ½x that any farmer in this country who did not drink, who did not lick stamps, and who did not buy stock exchange securities did not pay taxes. Exactly on the same basis he would be able to prove that the taxation that is flowing into the Central Fund from motor services did not go anywhere.
It does not require to be proved at all. Taxation cannot be argued on this Bill.
The question that I suggest to the House is that in considering those two services of road transport and rail transport, the imposts and contributions which may be taken from them and the services which they give, we must take into account the whole of the existing contributions under these heads. It is not sound financial policy to tax in any way——
The Deputy cannot talk about a tax on this Bill.
I cannot find a word for taxation——
The Deputy must not try to get out of the ruling of the Chair.
Say "spend."
I beg your pardon. If you would only speak up——
Say "spend."
Thank you very much. We are beginning to co-operate. You must not extract and you must not expend money. You must not extract from a particular service which is part of production an amount of money which is more than the very minimum which you can take——
The Deputy is still arguing the question of taxation of motors. He must not do that.
Having satisfied the House that the Chair and myself are in complete agreement as to what can and cannot be discussed on this measure, I would like to object to the policy of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and the Minister for Local Government, in relation to the action which they have taken, and the action which they have failed to take, in relation to this transport system. As far as I can see, no co-ordinated and properly scientific examination has been made of these road costs. Some weeks ago, before the Institute of Civil Engineers in Dublin, a Major Waller read a paper on road damage, and attempted to estimate scientifically what was the amount of damage done by vehicles of different characters on communal property of that kind. By so doing, in my opinion, Major Waller did a very great service to this community in stirring, if I may say so, the pool of our ignorance upon a subject of that character. Major Waller estimated that the damage to the roads done by an ordinary motor car, a 30 cwt. lorry, and a twenty-six passenger bus was in the order of 1 to 2¼, I think, to 4½. I read that paper with extreme interest, and with some care, and the arguments of this civil engineer in relation to that were fairly sound, though they rather suggested difficulties to those who had in practice estimated the damage done by these vehicles. Shortly after, Mr. O'Connor, one of the surveyors in County Cork, read before the same Society a paper in criticism, or examination, of Major Waller's paper. To my knowledge, Mr. O'Connor for some years has been studying and examining this question. I have had the privilege of knowing Mr. O'Connor, and of knowing the care and interest which he took in this problem over a period of years. Mr. O'Connor, from his experience, re-estimated the factors of damage. He calculated that the damage done by a motor car, a 30 cwt. lorry and a twenty-six passenger bus was not 1 to 2¼ to 4½ but 1 to 4½ to 27. Both these gentlemen have done a service in attempting to face this problem, a problem which has to be faced, and on which exact figures have to be got before it is possible for whomsoever will be Minister for Finance to estimate what is the amount of communal damage which is done, and which must be replaced by these vehicles. But when two eminent scientific men vary between 4½ and 27 in their estimate of the damage, it is perfectly evident that the whole problem is still in the melting pot. The suggestion in Mr. O'Connor's figures is that a twenty-six passenger bus does 27 times as much damage to the road as an ordinary motor car, while from Major Waller's figures it does 4½ times the amount of damage. Whatever amount of damage they do is going to be adequately or inadequately covered by the £7,000,000 which we are engaged in voting here to-day.
None of it is for that purpose.
What I suggest, with every possible respect to the President, is that as a scientific farmer of the taxes, as one who is precise and accurate, or anxious to be, in relation to the administration of the finances of this country, he or some of his advisers, or somebody appointed by him, should attempt to co-ordinate the facts, and the data given in these very important and very interesting papers, and try to find for this House what are the facts on which we should calculate that matter. When we come to discuss, at a time which will be orderly, the question which is not now orderly, that is to say, the taxation of buses, or the taxation of other road vehicles, we will require to have that exact knowledge, and it is time that it was got. If there is one thing that I personally would chalk up to the credit of the existing Government, it would be the work which has been done upon the main roads. Frankly, I think it has been done on the wrong roads, but, in so far as it has been done upon the main roads, it has been done well, and it is a great credit to the Department which is concerned in the matter. But that Department will not be doing its duty to the State, or to this House, unless, between now and the time when it will be orderly to discuss the matter, it uses some of the money that is now being voted for the purpose of ascertaining an accurate basis upon which we can decide this matter.
It may be said that the Minister for Industry and Commerce should already have seen the development which is taking place in bus services, and that he should already have seen the necessity of co-ordination between these two essential services. Frankly, I think the Minister for Industry and Commerce could have been somewhat more prescient as to the developments which have taken place. At any rate, the time has come now when the Minister for Industry and Commerce must find some system which is economic and efficient, which, while recognising the fact that these two services are essential, will bind them together in such a way that the community will get from them the benefits which they ought to get but which they are not getting. It is nothing less than a public scandal, it is a financial scandal of the highest possible magnitude, that there should be at present in this country, in this poor country which is not able to afford duplication of anything, running along our roads to the destruction of them unnecessarily competing traffic, and that there should be a complete lack of any attempt to use road traffic for the purpose of feeding the main railway arteries of the country. I think that some such system should have been already worked out. I hope that at a very early date the Minister for Industry and Commerce will turn his mind to that necessary co-ordination and give us in this country a system of transport which, having regard to the poverty of the country, to the fact that we cannot maintain an elaborate road service unless we make an economic user of it, will co-ordinate those two necessary services to the benefit of effective and economic internal transport in this country.
There are some aspects of education to which I wish to refer under this Vote. I am dividing them under three heads—the schools, curriculum, and the teachers. I do not wish to go into details, as this is not the time for it. There will be opportunities for the discussion of such matters when the Estimates come on, but I am suggesting that it would be time for the Department of Education to have fashioned some scheme to fix responsibility for the sanitation, ventilation, and heating of schools. It might seem a small matter, but the health of the next generation is largely affected by it. The condition of affairs revealed in the debates last year, particularly in the County Clare, was a sad one, and we are anxious to know whether any scheme has now been thought out. Another matter is the medical and dental inspection of schools. That would probably involve further expenditure, but, instead of being an apparent expense it would, in reality, be an economy. I believe the latest medical slogan is that prevention is better than cure. Certainly preventive medicine is much more discussed than curative medicine, and, in accordance with that, much suffering and ill-health would be saved by a proper development of the medical and dental inspection of schools.
Another point I would refer to briefly is the co-ordination of education. Considerable progress has been made, but there is room for further progress, as will be shown when the scheme of continuation and technical education comes before us. I wonder whether the Ministry of Education has thought of making, for instance, the examination for the senior leaving-certificate the only qualifying examination for entrance to universities. I do not say that it could, or should be, done at once, but there should be thought on those lines, because at present there is overlapping and waste of time and money, and also there is not that consistency in education which we should have. As regards the curriculum, I would like to lay emphasis on having the proper aim. The moral and religious side is already attended to by all denominations and there is no need for me to dwell on it, but I think more emphasis should be laid on the development of character both in primary, which are the schools of the great majority, and perhaps more particularly in secondary schools—regard for truth and teaching children the meanness even of lying. In that respect the old motto of the Fianna, "Truth, Courage and Physical Fitness," might be a good one. Citizenship, or certain aspects of it, might also be taught. Kindness to animals, and such things as regard for school property and communal property should be impressed on school children, and they should be taught that it is theirs and not anybody else's. That would prevent such things as you will see, even in Dublin, being done. I have seen cattle being driven from the cattle market to the docks and have seen children from 12 to 16 thinking that it was a most manly thing to have the heaviest possible stick to beat these poor brutes. I have seen them tearing up plants and shrubs in the public parks, and I have prevented, or tried to prevent, boys of 18 from doing it. These are things which should be taught in the schools just as well as mere lessons.
In the matter of Irish, we were told here by the Minister for Finance that their policy is—and I am sure he is quite sincere in that—the restoration of the Irish language, not only as the official language but as a real national language, the language of the people. Work is being done towards that end in the schools. I have my doubts as to whether the discontinuance of summer courses for teachers will not make against rather than for such progress. I think that two years more of such courses would be necessary to complete the plans that the Government had made in order to complete the structure. We would like to hear what it is intended to substitute for them. I know that the teachers rejoice at getting holidays free from such courses. We all would naturally rejoice in that case if we had to do it ourselves. I had to do it for some years, and it is rather hard to do science, Irish, or any other courses when you are supposed to have your holidays. Finally, as regards the teachers, I wish to refer to the Pensions Fund. I do not know whether I would be in order in doing so, but I would like to know what the policy is in regard to it, or whether any money is provided, or how it is provided, to supply the deficit of four million odd pounds.
When that Fund was started in, I believe, 1879, it was laid down, not in the Act but in the rules for pensions at the time, that the teachers' contribution should be one-fourth and the Endowment Account would give three-fourths to the Fund. Into that Endowment Account went the interest on the original endowment of £1,300,000 from the Irish Church Temporalities and other State grants. There was supposed to be a quinquennial actuarial investigation, but it has been sometimes omitted, and there have been, I think, only six held to date. There was one in 1910-12. There was not another then for several years. At any rate, it was definitely admitted under the Pension Rules of 1914, and again of 1924, that the teachers were responsible only for one-fourth, and in the actuarial investigation held every five years, the Contribution Fund and the Endowment Fund were, I believe, accounted for separately. They have been mixed up, I understand, in the recent investigations. I do not know for what purpose.
Last year I said that under the Financial Agreement with the British Government the Ministry for Finance should have got £10,000,000 on the score of education. We do not know whether they did or whether it was mentioned at all. The attention of the Minister was drawn to it at the time of the negotiations, and I do not know whether they got a set-off. If so, the money should be there to meet the deficit and, if not, somebody has been neglectful of his business. Teachers should be properly paid if you want the work done well. Some Deputies, I understand, think that they are overpaid. We would like to know from the Minister for Finance how he proposes to meet this deficit. Ten per cent. was taken off the teachers' salaries, and then there is four per cent. for contribution to pensions, and rumour has it that it is proposed to take off a further 8½ per cent. to make up the deficit, though the State was responsible for three-fourths of it up to now. In that case it would be 22½ per cent. off the teachers' salaries which, I suppose, would satisfy even Deputy Gorey. I should like to know from the Minister for Finance whether that question of ten millions in the Education Account was discussed when the Financial Agreement was made with England and when we were supposed to get this great bargain. If it was not settled I would like to know why, and I would also like to know what arrangement it is now intended to make to meet this deficit. I believe that to make the Teachers' Pension Fund solvent would, it is calculated, require £212,000 for forty years. That is rather a large sum. It would be of interest to the Dáil to find out what steps the Ministry of Finance intend to take in that matter.
The items mentioned by Deputy Fahy would fall more properly for treatment when the detailed Estimates come up for consideration. The most of Deputy Flinn's contribution was rather out of order, as it dealt with a matter that was not before the House. He dealt with the Road Fund, which is not voted here, and which comes under the Road Fund Act. I presume the Deputy did not look over the account or he would have seen that there is no item in it for any disbursement on roads.
Is there a disbursement for the Minister for Industry and Commerce?
Yes, but not for roads.
Is there a disbursement for the Minister for Local Government?
Yes, but not for roads.
The roads come under them.
The Deputy dealt with grants to improve the condition of the roads, the damage done by buses, the popularity of buses, and the necessity for making buses pay. A good deal of the discussion on this Bill arose on the early stages when references were made to the politics of the last few years, going back as far as 1921. Particular reference was made to an address which I considered it necessary to deliver quite recently. In making up my mind as to the place where such weighty words should be uttered, I had in mind the circumstances immediately surrounding the whole trend of events with which I had to deal. On the 20th February of this year Deputy O'Kelly, speaking, as he is reported on page 135 of the Official Debates, said: "The Executive Council themselves have too many political prisoners in jail for what, if they are anything at all, are very shadowy political offences." Later, on page 167, Deputy Cooney said: "On the other hand, we have in this State the Executive Council imprisoning men who tore down the Union Jack, which is not the flag of the country." Just about the time that these two statements were made Mr. Armstrong was shot, and, as I have said, I had to make up my mind in the circumstances of these two pronouncements, when and where to make a statement, which was a weighty statement, an important statement, and one which it was essential should be made. As the law stands in this country—and we are responsible in the Dáil for making the law; it is not the Government which makes the law but the Dáil and the Seanad—there is no distinction between what is called by some people political offences and other offences. There is no category of offence which could be ear-marked as political. It is either lawful or unlawful, and, as such, it is the duty of those responsible for the administration of the law to see that the law is obeyed. We have got no law here entitling any person to enter on any other person's premises and take down any property. We have got no law which will give the right to any individual to take down the flag of any country or to take down any property in another person's house without permission.
It would be a poor Executive and a miserable administration of law, if one were to countenance an attempt at an action such as that or an action which, by reason of certain people calling it political, was not to be dealt with according to law. If it be desired that such actions as this are not to be liable to prosecution, then let us regularise the business and introduce a law which would entitle anybody to enter a house or premises and to take down any emblem to which he might take exception. You cannot give to any person the right to take away property and deny it to another person. The very fact that these two statements were made by Deputies, by elected representatives of the people, called for a pronouncement, weighty, solemn and arresting in its terms.
For the by-election.
It is for me in my judgment, and it is for me in my responsible position, to select what I consider to be the proper place to make this announcement. It is not out of any disrespect to this House, for no person in this House or in the country has greater respect for this assembly than I have, but I have a right, if I so desire, to appeal to a higher court than this House in certain cases. Most of the statements which I heard from the Opposition this evening satisfied me that there is a certain political juvenility about the people who made them—such statements as "continuance of the Republic." What is the meaning of that statement? Have the people of the country got no rights? If my recollection of the trend of events is correct—I was not in the country when the election of 1918 took place—the major issue on that occasion was that of going to the Peace Conference to put forward our case.
Supposing I am wrong in that, that the people decided at that time to establish a republican form of government, the people at later elections sanctioned and gave authority for the ratification of the Treaty. Have they got a right to do that? I stand for carrying out the people's wish at any time; I make no higher claim than that; I have always claimed that they have the right to decide, if they so desire, to change, to revert back to the condition of affairs which existed prior to 1913, if they so desire, or, alternatively, to say that the Treaty is unsatisfactory, and to make other people responsible for effecting a different sort of accommodation. But, as has been stated before, there is a Constitutional method of doing that, and at least there ought to be found sufficient common sense in the various political parties to subscribe to that. These changes whenever they come, these alterations of the people's will whenever they arise, should be effected in an ordered and orderly fashion. It would be no credit to us here, or to the people of any other country, if political stability were only to be achieved by admitting that the last man in any extreme party has the right to dictate policy. I have not stood for that, I have stood against it, and I propose to stand against it for all time.
We are charged with using force against force. Force has been used against the State, against various officers of the State, and what are we invited to use against it? What other means is there of dealing with force, except by force? Such talk as "one would imagine the present Government had been nothing but a British Government"—did anybody ever listen to such ráméis? In exercising any authority which we have, we do so because the people have elected us. It has been no great pleasure, it will be no great pleasure to our successors, to discharge that duty. But, if we are to have ordered conditions of life at all, there is no other way than by allowing the majority of the people to decide; they may make mistakes; they are entitled to make them; it is their prerogative. They may change their minds: that also is their prerogative. I disagree utterly with Deputy O'Connell when he said: "We never stood for these tests." I wonder did he realise what he was saying? So far as the Treaty was concerned, it was a whole piece. One could not say in a bargain, "I object to this portion; I will take all of it but that." If Deputy O'Connell said: "I stand for the alteration of the Treaty by regular means," I could understand it.
Mr. O'Connell
That is what I meant.
That is all right then; we have no dispute; we are in agreement on that. A great deal of heat was displayed this evening, and it was not, to my mind, a very creditable performance. The burden of my speech the other night was that the prerogative of trial by jury does not belong to any party— it belongs to every party. If there is a better method let us hear it. Attempts have been made for the last twelve or eighteen months to sap juries, to interfere with the free expression of opinion in the jury box. We do not pack juries; we never attempted to pack them. There is a big list of jurors, bigger than ever there was. It is a great privilege, it is the greatest possible exercise of liberty, that particular method of trial. It ought to be one of the things every person in this country would be glad to see sustained, would be glad to see kept free from any influence of any sort or kind. Attempts have been made to influence jurymen. People have gone around this city serving notices on them. An organisation called "Ghosts," I think it is, has endeavoured to deter them from doing their duty? What duty are they asked to perform? Simply to administer the law made by the Dáil and Seanad, and which has the authority of the people. If it is objectionable then let the people change it, but let us agree upon this, that while it is there it is the duty of a juryman to discharge his responsibility as a citizen. Mark this, that in the judgment of the Executive Council it was necessary to pass into law an instrument called the Public Safety Act, and that Act was not long off the Statute Book when these two attempts were made. For twelve months, while it was there in suspense, capable of being put in operation, the cowardly ruffians who committed this murder, and who attempted another murder, kept their hands free, knowing what would happen in the event of such an attempt being made. Now that the Act is no longer there they abuse the confidence expressed by this House when it repealed this Act.
It is no great pleasure, but rather a matter of infinite pain to me, to make these statements. They are necessary in the public interest. The public mind could easily be misled in matters of this kind. I think every sensible person, decent person, with any patriotic instincts, will stand for the jury system and against any interference with jurors, and will stand for carrying out the law. Some play has been made in connection with arrests that have taken place recently. Not a single one of the persons arrested has died. Complaint is made that one of them is ill. This repressive legislation, as it is called here, had a reason for its being introduced. It had to deal with some special situation during the last few years. Only three or four years ago several members of the Gárda were shot. When incidents of that kind occur there is natural resentment on the part of persons in authority, and there is natural resentment in the Force itself. But in the charges made against them, no charge has been made that members of the Garda shot other people at that time, because there is no incident of the sort on record.
There is no getting away from it, we are dealing with a subterranean conspiracy here which employs extraordinary means to further its ends. Women are employed to bring round instruments of destruction and hand them over to young fellows; and young fellows, some of them not out of their teens, have performed these acts. Realising my responsibility here, and to the people, I denounced that in public and I condemned it. I asked for condemnation of it from all sections of the community, and I am glad to say that the response has been much better than I anticipated.
I would like to ask the President, as one who does not believe in a great many of these things, and would oppose them very definitely, has he proof, legal proof, of the statements he has made, or are they simply supposition? The statements have been very definitely made by the President, and I ask has he legal proof of these statements, or is he guessing?
I do not know what the Deputy means by legal proof.
Legal proof of what you have said.
Legal proof of what?
Legal proof that these women carried around these guns, and have given them to boys.
If we had legal proof we would deal with them.
Then you are simply guessing.
I am not guessing.
You made an accusation, and when you are challenged you will not stand over it.
I do stand over it.
took the Chair.
You are accusing this House.
I am not accusing this House of anything; I made a statement and I stand over it.
You know nothing about it.
I wish Deputies could be persuaded to use the third person.
He is absolutely guessing.
A question was asked three or four times, in the course of the debate, as to a certain document published by the President's Party and alleged to have been taken from a prisoner. A question was put to the Minister for Justice and to other Ministers in regard to that matter, but no answer was given. May I ask what prisoner was it found on and where?
It was discovered in a raid.
How did it get into the hands of Cumann na nGaedheal?
It was circulated to Ministers and whatever responsibility there is I accept it.
They circulated it themselves.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 70; Níl, 49.
Tá
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Cole, John James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cooper, Bryan Ricco.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Tierney, Michael.
- Vaughan, Daniel.
- White, John.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Kelly, Patrick Michael.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Leonard, Patrick.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James E.
- Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- Nally, Martin Michael.
- Nolan, John Thomas.
- O'Connell, Richard.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reynolds, Patrick.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Shaw, Patrick W.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
- Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Níl
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Clery, Michael.
- Coburn, James.
- Colbert, James.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Davin, William.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Everett, James.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killane, James Joseph.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Maguire, Ben.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- Moore, Séumas.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mullins, Thomas.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Kelly, Seán T.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl, Deputies G. Boland and Davin.
Motion declared carried.