In Committee on Finance. - Estimates for Public Services—Vote No. 3—Department of President of Executive Council (resumed). – Dáil Éireann (6th Dáil) – Friday, 24 Apr 1931

In Committee on Finance. - Estimates for Public Services—Vote No. 3—Department of President of Executive Council (resumed).

The Dáil, according to Order, went into Committee on Finance, and resumed consideration of the following motion:—

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

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

Mr. Corry

In dealing with this matter last night I gave as an example of what was occurring in the case of one family in the town of Cobh, a family consisting of four boys who had fought during the whole of the Tan régime. One of them was captured and executed, another was wounded, a third, after three years of unemployment, had to seek a living in America, and the fourth, unfortunately for himself, is a married man with a family, and had to remain at home. He is still unemployed. In dealing with this matter last night the Minister for Industry and Commerce said it was their duty to look after those who had fought. If it is the duty of the National Government to look after those who fought, do the President and the Executive Council deem that they have any duty whatever towards that family?

I regret to have to say here that the boy who was wounded and became a burden on his married brother, died last year from the effects of wounds. Two years ago I made an appeal here to the Minister for Finance for something for that wounded boy which would relieve the burden on the married man. I was refused, and the boy died in Cobh hospital, where he had been kept by the ratepayers of Co. Cork. That is the treatment meted out to those who fought. The married brother is still at home with a wife and three children to support. He is idle, while employment is being given in connection with the tanks at Haulbowline to ex-National Army men who are single men.

There is another very sinister feature about all this. It is very strange that on the very same day that an order was sent down by the Minister for Local Government to the county councils to the effect that the maximum wage to be paid for work on the roads was £1 9s. per week, that order was coupled with an order that preferential treatment was to be given to ex-members of the National Army. In other words, the respect which the Executive Council had for those who fought, as they put it, was to use them as blacklegs, strike breakers to break the labour movement, to bring down the wages of the working men to a level on which they could not live—£1 9s. per week on casual labour for a man who had to support his wife and children. That was the use to which the Executive Council turned their machine when they were done murdering their fellow-Irishmen. That is the use they made there of them. The Government turned them into a strike-breaking machine. I have seen the effect of that as a member of the County Council. I have seen it within six miles of the City of Cork, where we got a grant for a certain road. The farmers were to pay for a motorists' road something over £2,000 a mile. We got a grant from the Road Fund towards it, and that grant out of the Road Fund— mind you, it was not relief work or anything of the kind—was coupled with an order that the maximum wage was to be £1 9s. and that preferential treatment was to be given to ex-members of the National Army.

There are not, and I am glad of it, many ex-members of the National Army residing in my district. What happened? These men looked for a fair wage from the contractor who had the contract. They had broken time and everything else, and they asked to be paid by the hour. The contractor refused to pay them and there was a strike. The contractor went to the Labour Exchange in the City of Cork and brought down lorries full of ex-National Army men to break the strike of the labourers there for a living wage. The mothers and wives of those workers, who saw their husbands after twelve months of idleness again being deprived of a livelihood, turned out and drove off the ex-members of the National Army. The strike continued for two months, and at the end of that period these workers had to get the wages they looked for, in spite of the order of the Minister for Local Government.

The point I make is that not alone are these men to get preferential treatment, but they are to be used to crush any hopes of any working man getting a decent living wage in this country. That is the use that has been made of them. I have, perhaps, more respect for some ex-members of the National Army than the Executive Council. I would honestly say I have more respect for them. There are some good old comrades of mine who went and joined the National Army through their own convictions, and I would not like to see those men, after their services during the Tan regime and during the Civil War, used as strike-breakers and blacklegs by the Executive Council. That is the only use they have for the ordinary private soldier who served in the ranks, to use him as a blackleg. A picture was drawn in this House the other night of what was given to others by Deputy Aiken.

An Ceann Comhairle

It was an irrelevant picture.

Mr. Corry

We are dealing with preferential treatment given to ex-members of the National Army. This question is not confined solely to labour. It runs right through to the Appointments Commissioners where so many marks are given to ex-soldiers. We are told that the Appointments Commissioners act fairly and aboveboard, and that they judge candidates on their professional record and capacity. But how does it work out in practice? So many marks are given for service in the National Army. Although another candidate may have a better professional record he may be deprived of the position, and a candidate whose record is not as good may be appointed because he served in the National Army. On Wednesday evening, on the Post Office Vote, I alluded to the same thing. I dealt with the case of an unfortunate boy who was the sole support of his aged father and mother, who had worked for five years as an auxiliary postman, but who, when a vacancy occurred, was not promoted to a permanent position. No, a hooligan—and I cannot call him anything else—who had disgraced himself in the position, was brought in and put into the job because, as he said himself, he had served in every army in the world. He had served in the British Navy, in the British Army, and he followed up his work in the British Army by continuing to serve the British Army in green uniform. When that man came back to the village on a booze he was put into the position, while the boy who was the sole support of his aged parents was not appointed. At the time I appealed to the Parliamentary Secretary to consider the case. I pointed to the record of the man who had got the position, who had been found lying drunk on the strand in possession of a bag of letters that he should have delivered. That was his last service in the position. However, he was taken back, but he only held the position for three months when he went on another "bend." The job was not given to the boy who had been acting and who was only getting 5/- or 6/- a week.

If I wanted to make political capital out of this matter I would not say a word about it, because the biggest thing that is killing the Cumann na nGaedheal Government in the country at present is the bringing in of "buckoes" like the one I refer to and putting them into positions, while men with dependents are left on the roadside. If I wished to use such incidents for Party capital I would not say a word, but I have a duty to my constituents, who are being starved out, and who have not the money to go any place else. That is the position of affairs we want to rectify. I am not making any appeal to the Government. I have given up making appeals to the Executive Council, but I hope that the exposure will have the effect of compelling them to give justice to the unfortunate married men who happen to be unemployed while "buckoes" are brought in and given jobs. The use of ex-members of the National Army as a lever to pull down wages of the working people is a bigger scandal still. We had an example a short time ago of how these people were treated. A sum of £200,000 was given away to members of the National Army without the sanction of the Dáil. Is it not time this state of affairs ended? There is no use trying to shame the Government, but I hope that they will be driven into doing something by public exposure.

Dr. Ward

As Deputy Corry suggests, there appears to be a universal policy in the Departments which have to do with the expenditure of public money to give preference in employment to ex-members of the National Army. It is possible something could be said in defence of that policy a few years ago, but I submit the time has long passed when the regulations giving such preference to ex-members of the National Army, to the exclusion of members of the civilian population who have dependents, should be withdrawn. For example, taking the Unemployment Relief Votes, it would appear to me that when money is voted for the relief of unemployment the intention should be to do that regardless of the political views held by people who are unemployed. I think it is altogether wrong, and contrary to the intentions of the House when voting money that it should be earmarked for a particular section of the community, and a small section at that. The money is contributed by the taxpayers for the general good of the community, and the people who supply the money by way of taxation or local rates are entitled to be assured that it will be devoted to the relief of general distress and not to the relief of the small section that the Cumann na nGaedheal Party are disposed to relieve. The Department of Posts and Telegraphs, the Board of Works, and the Department of Local Government are, in my experience, the greatest offenders in this respect. We gathered from the Minister for Industry and Commerce that while these regulations exist they are not being enforced in all Departments. It would appear from the Minister's explanation of his policy that the extent to which they are being enforced depends on the enthusiasm of the Minister in charge.

From my experience of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, the Minister in charge of that Department, the Minister for Finance, exceeds all the other Ministers in his enthusiasm. We had a number of appointments of postmen in County Monaghan recently, and though there were many applications from fully-qualified men with dependents, and also from people recommended by the local postmasters, invariably they were turned down if they had not served in the National Army. The Minister for Industry and Commerce asked for details in specific cases the other night. In three distinct cases men have been appointed as sub-postmen who were not married, had no dependents, and were in receipt of Army pensions. I think that is carrying preferential treatment too far. In a recent appointment of a postman in a rural area in County Monaghan, the person appointed was an ex-Army pensioner drawing £2 10s. weekly. There were many unemployed applicants in the district, fully competent to discharge the duties, who were recommended by the local postmaster, and who had a knowledge of Irish, which one would think would induce the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs with his enthusiasm for the language to give them a preference.

However, it does not work out that way. In the town of Monaghan, preliminary arrangements have been made to expend the sum of £13,000 on a sewerage scheme. I understand that £4,000 of that £13,000 will be given in the form of grants. If the ratepayers of Monaghan are to put up £9,000 for the purpose of having this sewerage scheme carried out, I think it would be most unfair that the Minister responsible, or the Executive Council as a whole, should lay down as a condition of the expenditure of their money, that preference must be given to ex-members of the National Army, whether married or single, to the exclusion of the civilian population, many of whom are in dire distress and are being maintained out of the local charities or out of public funds. This policy is the cause of considerable friction down the country, and, I suppose, in the cities as well. It is not in a spirit of hostility to these people in particular that I make this protest; it is merely in the spirit of ordinary fair play. These people have been already generously treated. As was pointed out in the debate here last night, a considerable amount of public money has already been expended on ex-Army men and their dependents. The vast majority of these people are in receipt of pensions from the State. While in many cases the pensions may not be very large and may not be sufficient to maintain them and their dependents—if they have dependents— at any rate, they are in a considerably better condition financially than civilians who have dependents and who have no visible means of supporting these dependents.

It was suggested by Deputy Corry that this practice of giving preferential treatment to men who have served in the Free State Army applies from the labourer to the highest position that a public body or the Appointments Commission is called upon to fill. I think that that is utterly indefensible and that it is time that the regulations were withdrawn. If people are to be appointed to responsible executive positions in the service of local bodies, they should be appointed on merit and merit alone. I do not want to cite cases on that head, but I think it will be generally agreed that members of the National Army did not carry all the brains of the professions in recent years. It is a significant fact that, especially in the professions, ex-members of the National Army are the only people who have been appointed to public positions. I am sure that they have their ordinary share of ability, but I think it is asking too much to ask us to accept the position that they are the only people qualified in the professions in recent years who really have first-class brains, and are of first-class standing in their respective professions.

Mr. Fahy

The origin of these regulations which the President refers to as constituting the policy of the Executive Council, regarding preference in employment for ex-members of the Free State Army, seems to be shrouded in some obscurity. We cannot get definitely from any Department precise information as to when these regulations were first made. As far as I can discover, the first regulation made was in respect of the £2,000,000 grant, about 1923 or 1924, in connection with roads. Orders were sent down that preference should be given to ex-members of the Free State Army in the following order—Firstly, ex-members of the National Army who are married; secondly, single members of the National Army and married civilians on a fifty-fifty basis. There might have been some excuse for that course then, considering the position of affairs in the country and the number of men who were being disbanded, and for whom the Government had to get employment, or to whom they had to give grants. But the Government should not forget, and the President of the Executive Council particularly should not forget, when referring to the service of these men— this is not a matter of party politics— that years before, without any reward or any hope of it, there were men who gave good service. As has been shown, they are not being considered now. They asked for no reward and they expected none. I am sure that the President and members opposite will admit that on our side—on the side of those who oppose the Government— are many hundreds of those who gave good service from 1919 to 1921, and who should not now be passed over.

There might possibly be some excuse, also, in connection with certain grants or votes for giving some preference to ex-members of the Free State Army. I do not speak with any animosity against ex-members of the National Army. I only plead for fair play and that employment be given to those who most deserve it, whether they are ex-members of the National Army, ex-members of the British Army, or ex-members of any other army, if they are Irishmen. I merely ask that married men with dependents, or single men with dependents, be given preference in regard to employment, and I think that there should be no necessity whatever in 1931 for making that plea, considering that thirty-four million pounds, as has been shown by Labour Deputies, has been expended on the Army. They are certainly much better off than their civilian neighbours who have got no grant, no gratuities, no pensions, and it is most unfair to give them this continued preference. I have had representations made to me by ratepayers in County Galway, and by councillors and commissioners in five towns of County Galway, some of whom are supporters of Cumann na nGaedheal. They say that this is unfair and that there is no necessity to adopt this course to-day. The Government does not seem to appreciate that. Preference is being given to single men. I had one instance of that brought to my notice lately. It was the case of a road worker in County Galway who had six children. He was put off and a single man, an ex-member of the National Army, was put on. Consequently, this married man became dependent on home assistance. The ratepayers are naturally complaining that his place should be taken by a man with a pension. It is most unfair.

Mr. Davin

They denied this.

Mr. Fahy

Yes, they denied this, but I sent a whole statement of the case to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health within the last fortnight. In the same way, there is the position in the town of Ballinasloe. I have had representations made to me from time to time by ex-British soldiers, who are Irishmen after all, because many good Irishmen joined in the British Army in the Great War. They were driven into it for one reason or another, driven very often by economic stress. We know also that in the time of the Black and Tan War many ex-members of the British Army gave good service, and they should not be penalised. These men complain to me bitterly. They can get no employment there. The positions available are not sufficient to absorb the ex-members of the National Army, and single men at that.

Does the President think it makes for efficiency that a contractor for public works has to employ these men whether he likes it or not? I have been interested from time to time trying to secure employment for unemployed men. Some time ago I wanted to get employment for two men. One of them had been in the civil war and the other had not. Both had been in the I.R.A. I went to the contractor to get work for these men, and he said to me: "I dare not employ them, because if I did I would lose my Government contracts." That is the condition of things that runs through the whole gamut of employment as well. Vacancies were to be filled lately in connection with Fisheries. I would like to know if it is true that the candidates were asked about their services in the National Army. This thing runs through the whole gamut of employment under the State. In many districts in Galway there is great bitterness against ex-members of the National Army over this differentiation. The President and the Executive Council, in continuing these regulations, are doing no service to ex-members of the National Army. They are turning their neighbours and the local councils against these men. The Minister for Industry and Commerce says that it must continue longer. We have had a vote of £300,000 for the relief of distress passed in this House. Surely that money should be for the relief of those who need it. We were not told when it was going through that it was relief for ex-members of the National Army. We, as well as anybody else in this House, hope that ex-members of the National Army will get relief in proportion to their needs, that they will get relief as well as anyone else—but we want no preferential treatment for ex-National Army men or for ex-I.R.A. men, or ex-British Army men, or ex-anybody else. This system of giving a preference to ex-members of the National Army is very much like using Government resources for Party purposes. These regulations that the President still upholds look very much like that.

Apart from the cases I have mentioned. I will mention the case of the grant to Mountrath. There you had £5,000 raised locally, and the Government contributed £2,000, but the Government dictated who is to be employed. Though the local people had to put up the great bulk of the money the Government insists on dictating who is to get employment. I think it is not fair to the ex-members of the National Army, and it is not fair to the public; it is not fair to the contractors. The Government is doing a very bad thing politically for themselves. Of course the Government would not take any advice from me in that matter, but I tell them now that they are creating a great lot of antagonism, and it is of no use to the ex-members of the National Army, for it is turning their neighbours against them. It is time to stop it now.

Mr. Flinn

I do not want to say a great deal on this subject, but I do want to emphasise most strongly the bad effects resulting from this preferential treatment. There may have been some case for giving a preference to these men immediately after the civil war. I will put that stronger and say that there was a very strong case indeed for giving some preference to them at that particular time. Some 60,000 to 70,000 men were gathered up from all sorts of places in Ireland without any atmosphere of careful selection whatever. They were got into the Army for a certain time under very irregular conditions. The Army that was brought together was rather an irregular and scrappy thing. Out of that somewhat irregular military organisation something like 40,000 were demobilised. They were thrown on to the labour market. I am sorry that the President has left, because he has a definite and particular knowledge of this particular subject. He knows and the House knows that certain of these men who were, as it were, thrown out were men of very reckless character, and that there was a good deal of crime and disorder which was attributed to other people, but which was really the direct result of the sudden demobilisation of these men.

In these circumstances, just as in the case of the British Government who instituted an economic expedient which is having very serious results from the point of view of the future of the British people, the Government were faced with the problem of providing for the demobilised men. The British instituted the general dole system in order to avoid the consequences arising from the demobilisation of their men. In the case of the British there were some six million to seven million men who had been trained to arms and who had been trained for some years to regard life and property not merely of no importance, but something to be destroyed as such, and it was necessary, in order to prevent the revolutionary aftermath of the European War, that the British people should be prepared to expend some thousands of millions of money for the purpose of preventing these men who had been trained in these habits being let loose, with consequences which would naturally follow to the community. To some extent that was true in relation to our own demobilised Army. You had a somewhat parallel case. For a time I could see that the Government might have a duty of that kind, but with the fluxion of time that undoubtedly has passed away. These men are now normal members of society. They have been absorbed to the extent to which the Government will allow them to be absorbed into the ordinary community, and they have to take their place as ordinary citizens.

When we come here to this House we provide relief grants ad hoc. We presumably provide them for the purpose of relief of distress because of very urgent and real distress. It is certainly radically and fundamentally wrong that that relief should be car-marked for a particular section of the people. But if we were only dealing with these ad hoc amounts, however illogical the position would be, one might say “these are small things, do not mind them.” But during a number of years the whole tax revenue of this country is being used in the same way as a patronage fund. The contractor has to be of the right kind. Unless the contractor is of the right kind, unless he is prepared to fall in with the atmosphere, he cannot continue as contractor to the Government. The supplier of materials, the labourer, anybody who does not conform in this matter to the extent of the regulations, suffers in the expenditure of the £20,000,000 or the £23,000,000 which is taken from the community. All that money is used as a lever. The man to-day who would be politically opposed to this Government, who would enter into business, in which that Government would interfere, and risk his finance in the matter, would be very foolish. I had a case at the last election of a man who came to me and said that he was prepared to nominate me as a candidate. Before doing so, he said: “I will tell you my position, and if you tell me that I ought to do so I will nominate you.” He told me his actual business conditions.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is this relevant to the position of ex-National Army men?

Mr. Flinn

It is.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is not relevant.

Mr. Flinn

Very well then, I will not pursue it. The point we are dealing with is that in every department of the State, in the expenditure of the whole of the money which the State gets, the same atmosphere is running through it, the same atmosphere of preference and prejudice which is shown in this matter. I am not taking this thing up in any bitter spirit. I think it is bad from the point of view of the Government. It think it is bad from the point of view of the State. I think it prevents that settling down which I am anxious to see. It prevents people getting behind whatever Government may be in power, independent of what it is or of what its policies are. I hope that the Government, in the light of this debate, and in the light of the particular instances which have been given, and, if I may say so, especially in the light of the excellently stated case made by Deputy Davin, will turn their backs on the policy of proscription, and try, as far as the revenue of this country is concerned, and as far as their particular administration is concerned, to see that the benefit of it is fairly distributed over the whole community, and not confined to a section in which they are interested.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell

I would like to draw attention to a statement which the Minister for Industry and Commerce made yesterday evening, and which I think will have the effect of increasing the difficulties which several Deputies have referred to, and which take place when contracts for schemes of work are being carried out, in regard to this question of preference to ex-Servicemen.

This, as some of the speakers have said, is not by any means the first time in which this matter was raised in the House. It was raised in the form of a motion in June, 1926 by Deputy Norton and Deputy Johnson and the Minister for Local Government who is now Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, stated at that time that there was a tendency to have the regulations very considerably relaxed. A very significant statement was made on that occasion by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, just before the end of the debate and before the motion was withdrawn. He is reported to have stated "It is quite clear that there must come a time—I do not know when—because it depends on conditions of employment, but it should come I think, within a year—when this type of restriction will disappear altogether" (Col. 2255, Vol. 16—Official Debates). The Minister for Industry and Commerce made that very definite statement five years ago. It was his opinion at that time that inside a year or thereabouts the time would come when this particular restriction would come to an end. I think all must agree that the time has come when the difficulty of carrying out that restriction, if it were nothing else, has so increased that it is impossible to carry it out with any degree of fairness, because not alone must you consider the question of dependents, but all sorts of questions will arise. For instance, it may be that the ex-Army men joined in 1925 or 1926; they may not have the same claim that the men who went out in the period of Civil War would have. There are men who on several occasions, and under several schemes have got preference. How long are they going to continue to get that preference? All these questions will arise. I think the point that Deputy Davin stressed must receive consideration. The point I would stress is in some cases single men because they happen to be ex-members of the National Army, are getting preference over married men and men who have dependents. I think that is altogether wrong. I rose particularly, because I thought what the Minister for Industry and Commerce said about carrying it on further and even tightening up the regulations is not in keeping with the spirit with which we understood the Government regarded these regulations. We think, whether the Minister actually meant that or not, that it marks a new departure in the policy of the Executive Council with regard to these particular regulations.

I quoted what the Minister for Industry and Commerce said in 1925. The Minister for Local Government at that time indicated that as time went on the regulations, which were then being relaxed, would continue to be relaxed and modified. He said that the main object was to prevent victimisation of these men. Nobody stands for victimisation of these men. It has not been urged by anybody that there has been victimisation. I would like to know whether we are to take it from what the Minister for Industry and Commerce said that there is to be a new departure on the part of the Executive Council in regard to this and a new insistence that after 10 or 11 years this distinction must be made and must be continued. I do not know whether the Minister for Industry and Commerce definitely meant that. Certainly his words conveyed that. They will convey it to the local authorities and to whoever are concerned with getting employment for these people. I would like the President to clear it up when he is dealing with the matter.

Mr. MacEntee

There is one point which I thought might be emphasised and that is the question which Deputy Aiken put to the Minister for Industry and Commerce last night. What legal authority is there for this system of preference? This preference applies not only to relief schemes but to ordinary normal employment in the State. What legal authority is there for the regulations which have been published by the various Ministers—by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health in relation to employment and public bodies and by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in relation to the unemployment exchanges? There is absolutely no legal basis for it. It is contrary to the Constitution; it is anti-national and anti-social.

Yet a matter like this victimisation of the general body of the people of this country, is undefended in this House. The Minister for Industry and Commerce who was put up ostensibly to defend this policy did not say one word in its defence. He did not adduce a single solid argument in support of it. He merely contented himself with saying that it was the right thing to do. We are to accept that pronouncement of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, that it was the right thing to do, as an ex-cathedra pronouncement, an infallible and unassailable pronouncement not requiring any defence. There was one significant admission in the speech of the Minister for Industry and Commerce which I think should be taken note of by the members of the House. He said that because he believed this thing was right, three times he had issued instructions to the managers of the Labour Exchanges that certain regulations were to be enforced.

On three occasions subsequent enquiry disclosed that the regulations were not enforced, and, because of the fact that he believed that they had not been enforced with sufficient zeal, the Minister said that he had come to the conclusion that this system of preference ought to be continued for some time longer.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce is assumed to be one of the ablest members of the Executive Council, and he is supposed to be the man of push and go—one of these strong personalities that can force themselves on the Civil Service. It is rather an indication of the lax way in which the Executive Council controls the whole administration when you have the Minister for Industry and Commerce admitting in the House that, though on three separate occasions he had issued instructions to the staff of his Department that certain regulations were to be enforced, subsequent enquiry disclosed that those instructions had been ignored, and that the regulations were not being enforced with the zeal which he thinks they deserve. One or two things must follow from that, either that the regulations are so contrary to justice and equity and ordinary commonsense, or have so outraged public opinion that the managers of the Labour Exchange have found it impossible to enforce them, or else the Minister for Industry and Commerce is incapable of controlling his Department. I am inclined to believe that the first is the real explanation; that these regulations are so opposed to general principles of justice and equity, so contrary to what public opinion believes to be right, that the managers of the Labour Exchanges find it impossible to enforce them, because people will not submit to them. That bears out what Deputy Fahy and other Deputies have stated here, that these regulations do not tend to make the lot of the ex-National Army man easier in this country. The people they are supposed to benefits are merely being made the objects of envy, and those regulations tend to make their lot among their neighbours a little less happier than it would otherwise be.

I would like Deputies to bear in mind what Deputy Lemass said. He pointed out that it is not merely the followers of the Fianna Fáil Party or the followers of the Labour Party who are being victimised in this matter; the general body of the followers of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party are being victimised as well. I am perfectly certain that among the 500,000 votes which the Cumann na nGaedheal Party got at the last general election there must be a considerable number of unemployed citizens of the Irish Free State who did service in the National Army. I am perfectly certain that in Longford-Westmeath a large number of ex-Servicemen voted for Deputy Shaw. Similarly in Leix and Offaly I am sure a large number of ex-Servicemen voted for Deputy Aird, and I am sure that in Waterford large numbers of them voted for Deputy Redmond. Everyone of these supporters of Deputies of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party are victimised equally with the supporters of Deputy de Valera, Deputy Lemass, and other Deputies here on the Fianna Fáil Benches and on the Labour Benches as well.

I would like to stress the point that the policy of the Government appears to be to victimise the general body of the citizens in favour of one comparatively small section, one section which may have, in the eyes of the Executive Council, rendered some service to the State. If they did render any service to the State they have been well remunerated for it. They have had this preference for over nine years in relation to all public employment under the State. It is time now, if ever we want to end the bitterness, the division and the dissension which the civil war created, to liquidate the existing position and to abolish this preference once and for all. So far as employment under public bodies in the State is concerned, for eight or nine years this system of preference has continued to operate. If, within that time, positions have not been found for all ex-Servicemen who were capable of filling those positions; if within that period all available ex-Servicemen have not found positions either in a professional or a clerical capacity under public bodies, it is because they are not eligible to fill them; they are not qualified to fill them. Whatever selection board has had to consider their claims, they have been placed very low on the list, and others who had not the qualification of service in the Army have been placed above them because they were better fitted for the posts.

The point is, whether we are to continue to fill important positions under public authorities dealing with matters of public health, engineering works and things of that description, under this system of preference with the dregs of the profession, because that is what it comes to. There is no professional man discharged from the Army during the past four or five years who has not had adequate opportunity to find employment if he were capable to fill the positions that were vacant. If they have not been employed up to this, then the reason is that that they are unemployable. Surely to goodness we are not going to continue giving inferior persons a preference over men better qualified to fill the jobs? On that ground alone I say it is time that the system of preference ended. If there are to be any claims for preferential treatment there are other citizens in the State when, at one time or other, according to their lights and according to the prevailing opinion of the majority of the people, served the State equally as well as the ex-National Army men. After all, the history of Ireland did not begin with the year 1922. The years 1914, 1916, 1918, and 1921 marked periods when men were asked to come forward by those who were the responsible leaders of public opinion in this country and they served the country in arms. They were asked to make sacrifices on behalf of the country.

I did not always agree in 1914 and 1916 with the policy then advocated, but if people did come forward with the support of the majority of the people of the country they are equally entitled to preference with those who came forward in 1922. We cannot give preference to every section of the community, and it is not fair to victimise others by simply selecting for preference the men of 1922. It is because we cannot give preference to everybody without victimising the people who served the country equally as well that I say it is time the whole question of preference should be ended. We should liquidate all that has happened in 1914, 1921 and 1922. Let us all start as common citizens of the country with an equal chance in the struggle for existence. That is what we on these benches are asking in relation to opportunities of employment in the State.

Mr. Good

There are two questions I would like the President to give me some information about. In giving preference to men with Army service, does he make any distinction between the men who joined prior to 1924 and the men who joined subsequent to 1924? If he makes no distinction between those who joined up prior and subsequent to 1924, will he tell the House what claims to preferential treatment these men have who joined in 1924 and subsequently? I would also like him to give us some information about the position of Irishmen, and there are numbers of them, who took part in the Great War. Is any preferential treatment given to them and, if so, what?

Mr. M.J. Hennessy

Last evening Deputy Corry bolstered up his case on this ex-National Army issue by referring to a case in Cobh. He stated, in effect, that this particular family was victimised by the Government. I want to contradict that. I do not think it is quite fair to let a statement of that nature go unchallenged. I know the facts of that case. I know that the local authority in Cobh did not victimise that family nor did the Government. I cannot understand why members of the Opposition should put up such a scandalous case as that. I do not think it is quite fair. As a matter of fact I approached the Government on two or three occasions with regard to that family and on each occasion the Government met the case very generously. I simply rise for the purpose of stating those facts, because I do not think it would be fair for me to sit here and allow the terrible statement made by Deputy Corry last evening to go unchallenged.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Friday, 24 Apr 1931

In Committee on Finance. - Estimates for Public Services—Vote No. 3—Department of President of Executive Council (resumed).

Tá.

Níl.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 24 Apr 1931