Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 3 Jun 1936

Vol. 62 No. 11

Private Deputies' Business. - Unemployment Assistance (Second Employment Period) Order, 1936—Motion for Annulment.

Mr. Norton

I move:—

That the Unemployment Assistance (Second Employment Period) Order, 1936, presented to Dáil Eireann, pursuant to Section 7 (3) of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1933, on the 26th day of May, 1936, be and is hereby annulled.

The object of this motion is to ask the Dáil to annul the Unemployment Assistance (Second Employment Period) Order, 1936, which was made by the Minister under Section 7 (3) of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1933. By virtue of the power conferred upon him under the Act, the Minister is authorised to make orders, the object of which is to deprive large sections of people of unemployment assistance benefit during a portion of the year, and by the manner in which the powers of the Act in that respect are operated, it is not necessary for the Minister to come to the House to justify orders he makes. It is said the Minister is in the specially privileged position to issue an order and to lay it on the Table of the House, and is not called upon to justify the deprivation of benefit which will be widespread if the order becomes effective. I would prefer the position, whereby we might have from the Minister at the outset a statement as to his justification for the issue of an order of this kind. Instead we are put into the unfavourable position that the Minister makes the order, and it is only by a motion of this kind that it is possible to extract from him the reasons—even then it is not possible to do so—which justify the issue of an order of this kind. I should like to call the attention of the House to the increasing audacity of the Minister in respect of the issue of the Employment Period Orders. In 1935 the Minister issued a Second Employment Period Order, which deprived single men, or widowers, who had no dependents, residing in non-urbanised areas, of unemployment assistance benefit from 17th July to 1st October. The deprivation of benefit of a large section of persons under that Employment Period Order resulted in the saving to the State of a very substantial sum of money. This year, however, the Minister is not satisfied to allow the Employment Period Order to run the gamut of last year, but he comes to the House with a different Order, the object of which is to deprive similar persons of unemployment assistance benefit, during the period June 3rd until October 27th. In 1936 the currency of the Minister's order is six weeks earlier and runs four weeks later. Single persons and widowers without dependents living in non-urbanised areas will this year by the Minister's order be deprived of unemployment assistance benefit for a period of ten weeks longer than last year.

We ought to have from the Minister some justification for an Order of that kind. The issue of the Order requires justification, but its extension for a period of ten weeks longer than it operated last year requires some extraordinary justification on the part of the Minister. I confess that I am unable to understand on what ground the Minister seeks to justify an Order of this kind. If any possible ground could be put forward by the Minister it would probably be that there is a greater volume of work in rural areas, and that consequently it is justifiable to deprive persons mentioned in the Order of unemployment assistance benefit during a period which has been extended by ten weeks, this year. Is that the fact? Does the Minister really believe that there is a greater volume of work available in rural areas for single men and widowers without dependents? If the Minister is going to put forward that extraordinary contention in support of this Order, I would like to know if it refers to the country as a whole or to particular parts, and on what grounds that contention is based? So far as I can judge the position from very close contact with rural areas, I can see nothing to justify the Minister in assuming that there will be employment available this year for the very large number of persons who will be deprived of unemployment assistance benefit during the currency of the Order. In any case, I know of nothing which justifies the Minister assuming that not only will there be a large volume of employment available, but that it will be available for ten weeks longer than last year. If the Minister wants to put forward that audacious justification of this Order I would like to hear him attempting to explain or justify it, either by reference to the country as a whole or to particular areas.

I should like individual Deputies of the House to tell us what grounds they have for believing that in rural areas —and in many cases that often means fairly large-sized towns—there is going to be an abundance of work available from the 3rd June until 27th October sufficient to absorb all the persons whom the Minister is going to deprive of benefit by this Order. If that large volume of employment is available at present—and the Order is operative as from to-day—it is rather striking that the figures of the unemployed registered at the employment exchanges do not appear to bear out the assumption underlying this Order, namely that an abundance of employment is available. The Minister knows that until he introduced his Employment Period Order in respect of persons with holdings of land having each a valuation of £4 or over, there were 143,000 persons registered at the unemployment exchanges. I have no hesitation in saying that that number is still there, less the number whom the Minister deprived of unemployment assistance benefit by his First Employment Period Order. Yet the Minister seems to assume now that there is going to be an abundance of employment available between 3rd June and 27th October, sufficient to take off the register of the employment exchanges and to put into employment a large number of persons who will be guillotined in the matter of receiving unemployment assistance benefit under the terms of this Order.

I complained in the debate on the last Order, and in the course of discussions on Estimates for the Minister's Department in this House, that these Employment Period Orders were issued by the Minister without any inquiry having previously been undertaken to justify the issue of these Orders. I still doubt, and express my doubts here, whether the Minister has made any detailed inquiry, either on a national scale or in reference to particular areas, which would justify him in believing that there is going to be an abundance of work available in rural areas to absorb persons deprived of unemployment assistance benefit. I think the Order is issued merely to deprive persons of unemployment assistance benefit. I think it could be more aptly described, not as an Employment Period Order, but as an Economy Order, because its only purpose is to save money for the Exchequer. It is obvious, as I think the Minister will probably be compelled to acknowledge, that, prior to the issue of the Order, he has made no detailed inquiry in any area to justify the issue, either there or elsewhere, of an Order of this kind. The only purpose therefore of the issue of an Order of this character is to deprive single persons and widowers without dependents of unemployment assistance benefit for the longest period that the Minister dares to inflict upon them. This Employment Order, if it stood alone, would be bad, but it is linked now with the Employment Period Order affecting smallholders with a valuation of £4 or over. Even these two Employment Period Orders do not stand by themselves. Recently we had painful evidence of the adoption in the Minister's Department of the practice of disqualifying persons from receiving unemployment assistance benefit on the plea that they were not genuinely seeking work. In my own constituency and in other constituencies a substantial number of persons have been deprived of unemployment assistance benefit on the plea that they are not available for, and are not genuinely seeking, work.

Many of these persons have been told that their unemployment assistance benefit would be suspended but that they would have an opportunity of appealing to a court of referees. They are invited to go to the court of referees and present their case. Many of these people are penniless, many of them do not possess even a bicycle, but they are invited to go to a court of referees which in some cases sits 30 miles away from their homes. In their absence, they, of course, are unable to defend themselves, and the court presumes to pass judgment on the question as to whether they are available for work and whether they are genuinely seeking work. I think figures which can be obtained in the Minister's own Department, possibly figures obtainable as a result of instructions issued by the Minister himself, will show that a large number of persons who were genuinely entitled to benefit have, for some time, been denied that benefit merely by the Department saying in a general way, as I believe in some instances, that persons are not available for work and are not genuinely seeking work. We had deputations of persons, who interviewed members of this House, declaring that, in the case of Dublin, these persons were expected to produce letters from employers to show that they were genuinely seeking work, as if it were possible for unemployed persons, personally unknown to employers, to get an employer to sit down and write a letter for the information of the Minister's Department——

Mr. Lemass

I would suggest to the Deputy, if he wants to get this motion decided this evening, that he should confine his remarks to it and should not proceed to deal with the general administration of the Unemployment Assistance Act.

Mr. Norton

I know of no arrangement by which the discussion on this motion cannot be carried over until to-morrow.

Mr. Lemass

I cannot undertake that Government time will be made available for the motion to-morrow.

Mr. Norton

I think, if Government time can be made available for the purpose of considering an Insurance Bill, many sections of which will benefit British insurance companies, a little Government time should be made available to look after the mere Irish.

Mr. Lemass

That has nothing to do with the motion.

Mr. Norton

It has got something to do with the Minister's view that we have time to discuss the affairs of British insurance companies and that we have not sufficient time to ventilate adequately the needs of our own unemployed in this House. This is still the Parliament of the Free State and not Westminster. We are entitled in any case to give prior consideration to the claims of Irish nationals here, and I want to try to do it.

Mr. Lemass

This is an entirely unnecessary motion.

Mr. Norton

That is what the tyrant always says if anybody questions his authority. That is what the dictator always says, that Parliament is quite unnecessary. That is the kind of impetuosity the Minister should guard against. I do not think that the motion is unnecessary. Thousands of people will be affected by it. I was saying that, apart from the two Employment Period Orders, the Minister, by Departmental practice, not content with depriving the persons who will be subject to this Order of unemployment assistance, is depriving a large number of persons genuinely entitled to unemployment assistance benefit of the benefits to which they are clearly entitled under the Act. He is doing this on the faked plea that they are not available for work and are not genuinely seeking work. Although the Unemployment Assistance Act was passed to provide for the payment of benefit to persons who complied with certain statutory requirements, we find that, by the issue of Employment Period Orders, the Minister is depriving large numbers of them of that benefit for periods never contemplated when the Bill was passing through the House. On top of that, by the unsympathetic manner in which the Act is being administered in certain cases, the Minister is depriving other persons of the benefits to which they are properly entitled. It may be said that these people have a remedy against the Minister, but their title to unemployment assistance depends on the judgment of the Minister's officials. If these people had statutory rights and money to enforce their rights, a very different story might be told.

Mr. Lemass

Have they not statutory rights?

Mr. Norton

They have, but the interpretation of them is applied in such a way that the scales are hopelessly weighted against the applicant.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister's officials are not responsible for the interpretation.

Mr. Norton

The Minister himself determines that the court will sit in a place inaccessible to the applicant.

Mr. Lemass

But the court does the interpreting.

Mr. Norton

If the Minister finds any satisfaction in that point, he is welcome to it.

Mr. Lemass

It proves that the Deputy is wrong, which is always a satisfaction.

Mr. Norton

The Minister appoints the judge—the chairman. He wants to make the point that the court decides the claim. The court consists of an equal number of workers and employers, with a chairman appointed by the Minister. The Minister says the applicant can go to this court and get justice. While the Minister's officials will be sent to the court in State time and at State expense, the applicant is told that, although the court is 30 miles from him, he can get there any way he likes.

Mr. Lemass

Nothing of the kind. If the applicant is required to attend court, his expenses are paid.

Mr. Norton

Who decides that? Does the Minister suggest that the applicant can make a claim for his expenses every time he is referred to the court? Does he not know perfectly well that the applicant cannot get expenses for going to court unless the court insists that his presence there is necessary?

An Ceann Comhairle

The administration of the Act does not arise on this motion.

Mr. Norton

No, and I do not propose to refer to it further. Between Employment Period Orders and unsympathetic Departmental practice, there seems to be a conspiracy to deprive as many persons as possible of unemployment assistance benefit. That conspiracy is fortified by two Employment Period Orders of the character the House has been treated to this year. I hope in these circumstances the House will see its way to annul the Order which the Minister has laid on the Table of the House. I suggest that if this were not purely an economy measure, if this Order were not issued purely for the purpose of saving money to the Exchequer, the Minister could ensure that persons receiving unemployment assistance benefit would be made work during the period that work is available. I do not know of any persons who want to draw the miserable rate of unemployment assistance benefit at the employment exchanges in preference to working for decent rates of wages. We had the extraordinary case quoted by the Minister for Finance in his Budget statement, but these unemployed men would all prefer work at decent rates of wages to trekking miles for the small rate of benefit they receive at the employment exchanges. These people do not want anything in the form of a State grant at the employment exchanges; they prefer work. They prefer regular employment, but because of the inability of the Minister to provide them with that regular employment it is necessary to pass legislation to provide them with some fragmentary means of subsistence during periods of involuntary idleness.

If the Minister thinks that this vast mass of work is to be available in rural areas between the 3rd June and 27th October, the Minister need have no hesitation in pointing out the existence of the work to those affected by this Order and saying: "There is the work and there is the rate of wages, which is a fair rate. Take that work." Knowing that the work is there and that these people have been called to that work, he can in such cases automatically withdraw the unemployment assistance. That is a simple means of testing whether this work is available or not. The Minister knows perfectly well that the work is not there. He knows that there is no work available for these people on the scale contemplated in this Order. Knowing that the work is not there, and cannot be found for this large number of persons in the period mentioned, the Minister proceeds by a blanket motion to say that everybody who is single or a widower without dependents will be deprived of benefit during the currency of the Order. All that is done without any inquiry being made by the Minister as to whether or not employment is, in fact, available to those persons.

I think that this Order is most unfair. There is no justification whatever for making an Order of this kind and the Minister, in his public speeches, has not attempted to justify the making of an Order of this kind. It is easy to say to unemployed persons who are defenceless against a powerful Government Department that this Order is going to be made and that the State will save money by it. I suggest, however, that it is a most unfair way of interpreting the Act and of treating these people, who are in such bad circumstances at the present time.

Mr. Keyes

I formally second the motion.

Mr. McGilligan

Does the Deputy desire to have this matter brought to a conclusion to-night?

Mr. Norton

I do not mind.

Mr. McGilligan

I suggest that it would be much preferable, even at the cost of the Order running on for a day or two, to have this matter properly ventilated and, if necessary, taken up again on Friday or this day week. Deputy Norton has raised a point to which the Minister could give an answer very easily if the answer is available to him. As Deputy Norton has pointed out, unmarried men and widowers without dependents in certain areas were deemed to be able to find employment for 11 weeks in the summer period of last year. This year, they are deemed to be able to find employment for 21 weeks. Available employment, so far as rural Ireland is concerned, has so increased that the period can be doubled. Will the Minister tell us of one area in Ireland where this amazing outbreak of employment has taken place?

Mr. Lemass

There has been a general reduction in the number registered as unemployed.

Mr. Keyes

They are not signing on.

Mr. Lemass

They are not signing on with £2,500,000 provided for public works.

Mr. Norton

Provided on paper.

Mr. McGilligan

Yes, and pilfered from other people. Will the Minister tell us if the employment that is now general has broken out suddenly? How did it come that, up to the 3rd June, it was not supposed that there was employment available for all these people, and on the 3rd June, suddenly, all unmarried men and widowers without dependents can find employment? That is an amazing situation between the 2nd and 3rd of June. I should like to be referred to some place where I could find the inhabitants rejoicing over the fact that a bleak prospect on the 2nd of June had been transformed into a bright daylight prosperity on the 3rd of June. Can the Minister tell us, or can he by statistics show that there was a gradual approach to this sudden employment or was there any great drop in the number of people registering other than the drop that could be explained by the First Employment Period Order?

Mr. Lemass

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

We will probably get statistical information on this because I stressed the words other than that which can be explained by the first Order. That surely is a phenomenon worth noting. I read in a paper about people who set out in other countries under the slogan: "Unemployment can be conquered," and in those places we have articles written by a subsidised Press in which it is pointed out that it is being cured, and we have men there with their eyes glued upon maps into which they are sticking pins showing where the unemployment is being reduced. The Minister has gone far better than that. He deems there is employment, and behold, employment is there. Since the creation there has been nothing like it. That is the situation to which Deputy Norton has, in cold, calculated language, referred to this evening. He found himself amazed at some of the Minister's pronouncements. The Minister said that the whole question of unemployment in Ireland was concerned with a mere matter of 40,000 men. On a later occasion he told us when his Turf Bill was through the House he would have 50,000 additional men employed at turf-cutting. There we are to have part of his promise about recalling the exiles realised. That, of course, is in the region of promises. The Minister wipes out unemployment in that way by promising to alter the whole problem surrounding the 40,000 unemployed. How many did he wipe out in the first Order? I remember the time when the Minister himself and the members of his Party were vociferous about the cases of individuals which were raised here and were found to have in the particular circumstances employment on the farms. The Minister, when in opposition, was loth to believe that a man with a few acres of land had employment on that land at any time.

Deputy Norton referred rather lightly and casually to one matter. The Deputy ought to have realised by this time that there is no longer, if there ever was, any sincere feeling for unemployed people in this country. There is no longer any such feeling in the hearts of the present Government. There has been a gradual approach in this matter. The Minister showed the new tendency about unemployment. His attitude was shared by one of his colleagues in the back benches of the Fianna Fáil Party, who shouted out here that the unemployed people of Galway were too lazy to work. Then the Minister for Finance, in a sonorous speech, rendered that in a different key, when he said that a number of people refused to take up work because they thought it was too far for them to travel to it, and he went on to say that an incident like the one he mentioned showed that there were numbers of people receiving aid from the Unemployment Fund who did not deserve to be on it. The Minister knows well that so far from work being available, the unemployed are vainly trying to get work. The Minister's own statistics with regard to rural Ireland paint an entirely different picture. The statistics show that in 1934, as far as rural Ireland was concerned, there was no increase in the case of those who were working for hire on the farms. But there was an increase in the case of people who were working on their own farms.

In 1935, even the numbers of the farmers and their families working on the land had gone down. So far as labourers were concerned, temporary employment on the land was down by 600, so far as those working for hire were concerned; but the number of farmers and their families working on the land was up by 2,400.

These statistics show that for some period of the year—a quarter of the year—there was employment available for 2,400 at bad wages. We have the position now, according to the Minister, that from the 3rd of June to the 27th of October all married men without dependents and all widowers without dependents are able to find work. The whole thing is beyond a miracle. I wonder if this thing is going to develop. The Minister himself some weeks ago when asked a question about the point that Deputy Norton has referred to, the "unemployable" classes in the country, admitted that the numbers were a very small percentage of those who were down as unemployed. There certainly was not 2 per cent. of the unemployed who would not take work if it were available. The Minister himself at that time backed up that calculation, but at a later stage we had the Fianna Fáil back bencher from Galway saying that the people there were too lazy to work. The Minister himself agrees that the number of the unemployable is a very small fraction of those who were signing up. But the Minister suddenly makes conditions better. He does not bring that about gradually by saying that he will make more stringent regulations. But suddenly he says work is available and all those seeking for work are told that they are able to get employment for 21 weeks on the land. Deputy Norton asks what work is available this year that was not available last year. This year people are deemed to be able to get work for 21 weeks as against 11 weeks in last year. That certainly is a matter that demands more than an Order. It demands tar barrels around the country. If the Minister can give any indication that there is in the country work that will occupy the people this year for 21 weeks as against 11 weeks last year he deserves a triumphant procession with tar barrels, banners and bands throughout the country. Deputy Norton says that this Order is purely an economy measure. Of course this Employment Period Order is an economy measure. The Minister in his heart is not relying on the unemployed getting work in this country. He knows that there is a flight to England.

Mr. Davin

Have you any figures?

Mr. McGilligan

I have no figures that I could quote at the moment but I know that from various areas in the country there have been many thousands going to England.

Mr. MacEntee

How many?

Mr. McGilligan

Many thousands. Men, not ounces of gold or anything like that. So much is this the case that they are attracting attention at the other side, and when attention is directed to them we get the answer that they are still British subjects and are entitled to get work there. We do know that emigration to England, the building trades and the numbers that are rammed into Arbour Hill are three factors in the keeping down of the unemployment figures in Ireland. I should have added the out-officers of the Civil Service, the semi-detached branches that are now so numerous. Outside these three classes can the Minister point to any concrete definite case where employment is now offering where it was not before? Is Deputy Norton right in saying that instructions are issued to people in the Minister's Department to decide cases under the Unemployment Assistance Act? I do not remember that such instructions were given during my time. But if Deputy Norton thinks it is done or if the Minister will agree that it is permissible to have it done I can imagine his saying in a period like this that there ought to be more rigorous inquiry as to whether people are looking for work. It might be that in that way a few thousands would be removed from the register and put to work that was available for them. In 1935 at the expense of 600 permanent employed workers on the land there was a net gain for a quarter of the year of 1800. There could be little said against a more rigorous examination, but the Minister must realise that it is a different thing saying that from the 3rd of June employment is to be found until the 27th of October for these people on the land. Then after the 27th October the bleak prospect happens again and there is no employment for these people. I think there must be great sympathy with Deputy Norton at the moment when he says that it is no longer a question of attempting to get work. It is simply a case of saying on the part of the Minister: "I am making a declaration that work is to be got. I have nothing to do with getting it. You are to secure work and for 21 weeks you are to be treated as if you are actually at work. We assume that there is work there for you." That is certainly one way of dealing with unemployment.

The Minister alluded to the £2,500,000 scheme. That matter was mentioned on the occasion of the Budget and the Minister tells us now that the problem of securing employment is concerned with 40,000 people. The Minister in the same week tells us that the turf business will give employment to 50,000 people. Now, according to the Minister there are 40,000 needing employment and there is a prospect of 50,000 getting employment when the Turf Bill comes into operation. Notwithstanding the glorious situation revealed by the co-relation of these two sets of figures, the Minister for Finance decides that he will rob the county councils and pilfer other portions of the Exchequer to get his £2,500,000, and that is going to be spent on the roads. The Minister talks as if that scheme were actually in operation. Why, it is only being turned over in the Minister's mind, and I am safe in assuming there will be no attempt to launch that scheme until such time as the Government make up their minds about an election. I presume that means there will be no election until after 27th October. It is the only thing one can take out of this Order. It is a scandalous attempt to make good for the Exchequer at the expense of the people for whom the Minister's heart used at one time to bleed so much. Nobody shouted, wept and tiraded so much as the Minister for Industry and Commerce, except the Minister for Finance.

At this moment, when the Minister for Education decided that he would rub the salt into the wound exposed last year by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, we get this proposal. Last year, the Parliamentary Secretary said the workers would pay through taxation of the necessities of life. The Minister for Education rolled over that phrase and said of course they would pay and the reason necessities were taxed this year was to bring home taxation to them. The Minister's statistics show that nominal wages are down, as far as the farmers are concerned, by £750,000. Real wages in town and country are down. References have been made to a variety of schemes. What are the schemes doing? They are spreading unemployment. This is an attempt to get the spread of unemployment over a bigger number of people. The one thing in which there is any salvation is the building industry. We hear of all the houses that are being built by Seán T. with my money and other people's money. If it was not for the housing programme there would be an extra 25,000 unemployed on the Minister's hands. His tariff proposals have been worth nothing. He has a big set-off confronting him by the people who are being thrown out of work.

Mr. Lemass

Where were they thrown out of work?

Mr. McGilligan

I cannot tell you that, but I can tell you this, that I can quote the Minister's own figures—

Mr. Lemass

I am anxious to clear up one point about which I am rather curious. The Deputy has spoken about people being thrown out of work. They must have had some occupation in order to have lost it. Out of what occupations were people thrown?

Mr. McGilligan

Perhaps the Minister will think it is a gibe if I mention Gallaher's?

Mr. Lemass

Does the Deputy mean to suggest that there are fewer people engaged in the tobacco industry now than there were before?

Mr. McGilligan

I suggest that there are fewer people in insurable occupations.

Mr. Lemass

What occupations?

Mr. McGilligan

Let me take one test, the capacity to divide a certain round figure by four, and that is not beyond the Minister.

Mr. Lemass

I am dealing with a practical situation. I want to know what are the occupations that people lost.

Mr. McGilligan

I leave that to the Minister to answer himself.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy will not answer it?

Mr. McGilligan

I will on another occasion. There is a fund into which everybody must pay if he is in an insurable occupation. That has gone up by £300,000.

Mr. Lemass

It has gone up by more than that.

Mr. McGilligan

It has not. In three calendar years it has gone up by £300,000. Now, £4 represents what one man will bring into the fund if he is occupied for something less than the full year. If you work out a sum in simple division you will ascertain that it represents 25,000 people.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy is 60 per cent. right, and that is not bad.

Mr. McGilligan

I am 100 per cent. right, and that is probably beyond the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Mr. Lemass

There are 36,000. Work on that figure.

Mr. McGilligan

I will work on that figure if the Minister wishes; I will take it any way the Minister likes. For the purpose of comparison I prefer to take it on the basis of full-time employment in insurable occupations. As I have pointed out, there are 25,000 in insurable occupations.

Mr. Lemass

And 13,000 in the other categories.

Mr. Victory

Will the Deputy give us the number of people who died of starvation since he left office?

Mr. McGilligan

I read of a certain very tragic business about a suicide recently that was supposed to be brought about by something with which I had nothing to do; it was worry induced by a certain going back over income-tax. I think there were also cases of people who were found to have committed suicide because they were not able to get food. Perhaps the Deputy does not read the papers at these columns.

Mr. Davin

What about the industries that get the benefits of tariffs and are putting up their profits?

Mr. McGilligan

I do not want to deal with that now.

Mr. Davin

Did you see to-day's Irish Press?

Mr. McGilligan

I do not want to go into these matters at this stage. If Deputies wish they may intervene and then these particular facts can be recorded for their benefit if they want them. I have indicated that there are 25,000 in insurable occupations and the building industry is responsible for 20,000. My assumption is—and I grant the Minister that there is not just the same solid foundation beneath my feet here—that the Minister, when he called the Press into conference in October, 1934, told the truth, because there he laid all his calculations on so many people directly employed proportionate to a certain number of houses built or in course of completion. If I take the number in 1934 and 1935 and the early part of this year, there are at least 20,000 who have found employment through the building industry. The Minister told us that at least 3,000 got extra employment through relief works. We hear then the calculation made by the President, whose mathematics are not as subject to suspicion as his facts sometimes are, that there are at least another 1,000 engaged in the beet industry. Then there are 1,000 whom you can scatter amongst all the tarriffed industries. I believe more have gone into the tariffed industries than 1,000 and, therefore, some people must have been put out of insurable occupations.

Mr. Lemass

What occupations?

Mr. McGilligan

Any occupations of an insurable type.

Mr. Lemass

Will the Deputy mention one?

Mr. McGilligan

Any number of them. I could bring the Minister to places where men have been put out of work.

Mr. MacEntee

What places?

Mr. McGilligan

I will tabulate a list of places where people have lost employment if the Minister tabulates a list of the factories.

Mr. Lemass

I published them.

Mr. McGilligan

Not at all. We have had from the Minister a statement with regard to the numbers employed.

Mr. Lemass

I published a Directory.

Mr. McGilligan

By no means. The Minister got other people to publish a Directory.

Mr. Lemass

I published an official Directory.

Mr. McGilligan

By no means—not of factories. The Minister has always hidden behind them. He has quibbled about what is a factory and what is a workshop. If the Minister will only give us a list of the factories and give the other particulars that I have asked for over and over again and that Deputy Mulcahy has spent days trying to get——

Mr. Lemass

And if I do that what will the Deputy do?

Mr. McGilligan

I will give the Minister references to places where people have lost occupations of an insurable type.

Mr. Lemass

Of places where fewer people are employed now than there were before?

Mr. McGilligan

I will refer the Minister to insurable occupations where people used to have employment and where they are now no longer employed to the same extent. The Minister gets 20,000 extra in building and 3,000 in relief works. Then he has 1,000 at a cost of nearly £1,000,000 in the beet sugar factories and he has 1,000 to throw around over all the other factories. At an expenditure, borne by the taxpayers, of £3,000,000 he has 9,000 in agricultural employment. He has lost 600 permanent labourers and gained 2,400 temporary workers for a quarter of the year.

In the face of all that, the Minister tells us that there is occupation available for 21 weeks where last year it was available only for 11. Now that is so amazing that it ought to be capable of answer in this way: the Minister should simply read out a list of places, and I am sure Deputy Norton would be gratified to hear of, say, a dozen places in the country in which two men are employed now where only one was employed before June dawned. The whole Order is the greatest nonsense. It is not founded on reality, and it is an attempt simply to side-track the whole problem. I confess that as every one of these movements occurs—extra impositions loaded on to the working classes of the country with the utterances that come from the benches opposite with regard to people being too lazy to work or finding the walk to work too far—that more and more do I get sympathy with the representatives of the Labour people in the House although I think they have brought part of this on themselves. It is no great help to have to say that now. It is certainly nothing that should be visited on the people outside. As I said before, it is not merely cruel but cynical to attempt to pass over at this moment an Order of this kind when there is so much unemployment in the country. I suggest to the House that the Order should be rejected at once.

Mr. Lemass

We know now where Deputy McGilligan stands in the matter, even if we are surprised a bit by the knowledge. A motion has been moved by Deputy Norton that an Employment Period Order made under the Unemployment Assistance Act should be annulled, and the reason we are told why the Order should be annulled is because people living in rural areas affected by that Order should be entitled to continue to draw unemployment assistance during the period covered by the Order. I am rather surprised that the Party opposite put up Deputy McGilligan to make their case on this. Some show of consistency might have been maintained if Deputy Morrissey had made the case. The Unemployment Assistance Act was passed in 1934, and before 1934 there was no provision, other than the poor law, for those in rural areas who were unable to get employment or who, for any reason, were unable to maintain themselves—no provision of any kind. Deputy McGilligan is now indignant because the unemployment assistance provisions which commenced to operate in 1934 are being temporarily suspended in respect of certain classes for a certain part of the year. When the Unemployment Assistance Act was being considered by the Government, we deliberated for a long time as to whether or not it should be made applicable to rural areas at all, because of the obvious difficulties of operating a scheme of that kind in rural areas amongst people, most of whom live long distances from any employment exchange or branch office, who could not be kept under supervision as regards their personal circumstances to the same extent as persons living in towns. It was decided, nevertheless, to extend the provision of the Act to rural areas and to include within its scope certain classes of landholders residing in those areas, and there is no other country in Europe which has made such wide provision for dealing with distress resulting from temporary unemployment.

When we had made that decision there followed a consequential decision. It was decided then, in order to get over the particular difficulty of operating the unemployment assistance scheme in rural areas, to provide for a cessation of its operation during certain periods of the year. The difficulty in rural areas is this: that during periods of the year there is considerable difficulty in determining whether a particular individual can be regarded as employed or not. We have got upon the list of persons receiving unemployment assistance a large number of landholders—persons who are the registered owners of land. These persons are not in a position to get from that land an adequate livelihood. They do not get a return for their work on that land sufficient to keep them going all the year round, and so at certain periods of the year they are available for work and seek work—work of other kinds such as work on the roads or work of a similar nature, whenever it is available to them. These persons are, no doubt, willing to take that work at any time that it offers, even at certain periods of the year during which they should be employed on their own land either in putting in the crops or in harvesting the crops.

The same applies in respect to a large number of single men. The great majority of this class who have registered are the sons of landholders, residing with their fathers and on their fathers' farms, and during certain periods of the year they are, or should be, employed working on their fathers' lands. They certainly cannot be regarded as unemployed and available for employment elsewhere when there is work to be done on that land. Therefore, we provide in the Act for this arrangement under which Employment Period Orders can be made in respect of certain classes of people at certain times of the year. When such Orders are made these people at these periods are not entitled to receive unemployment assistance.

That provision in the Unemployment Assistance Act was adopted by the Dáil, and no strong opposition was advanced from any quarter of the House to its enactment. Now, we made such an Order last year. I have stated already that we contemplated, when framing that Act, excluding rural areas from the scope of its operation for certain periods of the year, and excluding them entirely. We have not done so. We have made Orders affecting all the classes in rural areas which might reasonably be expected to be employed at these periods of the year. We have excluded only two classes— one, for a fairly long period, and that is the actual owners of land the poor law valuation of which exceeds £4, and, secondly, the class affected by this Order, single men without dependents during the period for which the Order has been made. All other classes in rural areas, if qualified under the Act, are still entitled to draw unemployment assistance. Now, we made a similar Order last year. It was an Order for a shorter period, and I think Deputies will admit that it is fair to consider the justification for this Order in the light of our experience of last year. Was there any evidence that the making of the Employment Period Order of last year caused hardship? Was there any evidence that, in fact, people who were excluded from unemployment assistance could not get work?

Mr. Morrissey

What is the evidence that they could?

Mr. Lemass

There is evidence to the contrary. We are told that these people are being left destitute. Now, if they were left destitute last year, it is reasonable to suppose that they would do one of two things, if not both: they would maintain their registration at the exchanges, and they would apply for assistance out of the poor law.

Mr. Davin

And that is what they did.

Mr. Lemass

We will see whether they did not. I say that it is reasonable to assume that they would maintain their registration.

Mr. Morrissey

Why?

Mr. Lemass

Because they were not deprived by the Order of their right to a preference in employment on public works.

Mr. Morrissey

That is worth nothing.

Mr. Lemass

Deputies can tell us that unemployed persons did not maintain their registration. I do not believe it in view of the fact that very considerable sums of money were made available to be spent on public works. When these people are given by the Government a right to preference upon that work, do you try to persuade me that, if they were destitute and unable to get employment under any circumstances, they would not maintain their registration?

Mr. Davin

What preference do they get?

Mr. Everett

Is the Minister aware that public works are kept back until the winter time by order of the Government?

Mr. Lemass

I agree that the bulk of the works is done in winter, but works are also done in summer. There are various classes of works which can only be done in summer.

Mr. Morrissey

And which are nearly all in towns.

Mr. Lemass

They did not maintain their registration. They did not go to the trouble of maintaining their registration in the exchanges, in the hope that it might lead them to employment, although, in fact, 21,000 of them got employment during that period last year.

Mr. Morrissey

Of the people laid off in the year?

Mr. Lemass

Yes. I will give the Deputy all the figures he wants.

Mr. Morrissey

Would the Minister give a little more information?

Mr. Lemass

I will accept the Deputy's contention that these people did not get employment and did not even look for employment by maintaining their registration at the exchanges, but, nevertheless, they were destitute, and, as destitute able-bodied persons, they were entitled to assistance under the Poor Law. Why did they not look for that?

Mr. Davin

They did.

Mr. Lemass

Deputy Davin says they did. I will give the Deputy figures for the last Saturday in each month of last year of the number of able-bodied persons in receipt of home assistance.

Mr. Davin

Give us the number who applied for it. That is a good answer.

Mr. Lemass

I do not think it is a good answer; it is a red herring.

Mr. Davin

I agree it is not.

Mr. Lemass

What is the Deputy's point? Does he contend that the boads of assistance did not fulfil their statutory functions?

Mr. Everett

I maintain that a large number made application, but the boards, owing to their financial position, refused to give it to single men.

Mr. Lemass

In fact, they gave it to a number of single men. That upsets the first part of the Deputy's argument. He said they did not give assistance to single men. I say they did. They gave it to a considerable number of single men.

Mr. Everett

The Minister would need to be at the board of health.

Mr. Lemass

I am going through all the available facts, and Deputies can put their fancies against these facts as often as they like. Deputy Morrissey has asked if I have any evidence that these people got employment, and that in fact they were not subject to destitution because of the Order. I say that all the existing evidence points to that conclusion.

Mr. Morrissey

Where are the facts about the employment they got?

Mr. Lemass

First of all, they did not register. These people who are given a preference in employment upon works financed out of State funds did not register at the exchange to get that work.

Mr. Morrissey

All those works were in towns and cities and the Minister knows that.

Mr. Lemass

At any rate, they did not register to get it. So far as the unemployment register is concerned, the evidence is that these people were in employment or were not seeking employment of any kind.

Mr. Morrissey

And that is the justification for this Order.

Mr. Lemass

The number of able-bodied persons receiving home assistance on the last Saturday in June, when the Order commenced to operate, was 4,306.

Mr. Davin

How many made application?

Mr. Lemass

I do not know how many made application.

Mr. Davin

You should find that out.

Mr. Lemass

That is the number that received it.

Mr. Norton

June, when?

Mr. Lemass

June, 1935.

Mr. Norton

The Order did not become effective until later.

Mr. Lemass

The last Saturday in June. The number was less in August; it was still less in September; it was less in October; and it commenced to rise again in November, when the Order ceased to operate. We are told that these 41,000 people, who were affected by the corresponding Order last year, did not get employment and were rendered destitute, although they did not maintain their registration at the exchanges, and did not get home assistance. I will tell Deputies what happened. Let me explain first that that 41,000 is not the actual number which at any one time were affected by the Order. It is a cumulative figure.

Mr. Morrissey

I was wondering when the Minister was going to explain it away.

Mr. Lemass

It is a cumulative figure and represents the number of persons who were deprived of unemployment assistance because of the Order at any time during the period the Order was in operation. If the Order had not been made, a substantial number of these persons would, in any event, have got employment, or, for some other reason, would not have received unemployment assistance. Taking this figure of 41,000. Of these 41,000, 24,000 were sons of farmers living on the farms owned by their fathers.

Mr. Davin

What is the average valuation?

Mr. Lemass

Farms of all sizes. There is no limitation on the valuation of the farm so far as the son is concerned.

Mr. Davin

What is the average valuation?

Mr. Lemass

The average valuation of all farms in the country. Am I entitled reasonably to assume that the son of a farmer, living with his father in a house situated on the farm, is engaged on work upon that farm during the harvest season? At any rate, am I not entitled to assume that he could be so employed?

Mr. Davin

On an economic holding.

Mr. Lemass

I will leave it to any reasonable Deputy to say whether I am justified in deducting from the 41,000 people who are affected by the Order the 24,000 people who were the sons of farmers living on farms with their fathers.

Mr. Keyes

Can the Minister say how many of these were in receipt of unemployment assistance?

Mr. Lemass

All of them.

Mr. Keyes

They might have had qualification certificates, but they were not receiving benefit.

Mr. Lemass

Every figure I give at the moment relates to people who were receiving unemployment assistance before the Order came into operation. That leaves 17,000. There were 17,000 people, other than these farmers' sons, struck off, and, as a result on an inquiry conducted by the local officers in my Department, I find that there were 21,000 people affected by the Order who got employment during that period. There is a certain overlapping, as is inevitable, but it is quite clear from these figures that the making of the Employment Period Order was quite justified and that persons affected by it got employment, or, at any rate, were not unemployed during that period.

Mr. Morrissey

How was that figure arrived at?

Mr. Lemass

As a result of an inquiry carried out in my Department.

Mr. Morrissey

There were 20,000 did not get it.

Mr. Lemass

Not at all.

Mr. Norton

Was it a conjurer conducted the inquiry?

Mr. Lemass

Plain, matter-of-fact officials, who had certainly no purpose in cooking the figures with which they supplied me.

Mr. Davin

Would that apply to the Mayo and Leitrim farms?

Mr. Lemass

It applies to the country generally. 41,000 people were affected by the Employment Period Order. These 41,000 people who, we had been told, were left destitute as a result of the Order, did not bother to register for employment at the exchanges. There was a decrease in the number of able-bodied persons who got outdoor relief from the boards of assistance, and we know from direct evidence that these people were either employed on the farms upon which they live, or got employment during that period, and, on the basis of those figures, I think we are justified in renewing the Order this year, and renewing it for a longer period. I will tell the House why. It is because there is much less unemployment in the country this year than last year.

Mr. Morrissey

Good man!

Mr. Lemass

Deputies quote the live register figures at me as representing an accurate indication of the volume of unemployment in the country. I have never accepted them as such. I have tried time and again to convince Deputies opposite that they were not, but they have continually reiterated them as being an accurate index of the unemployment situation. There is a substantially smaller number registering at the exchanges now than this time last year.

Mr. Morrissey

Why would there not be?

Mr. Lemass

Let Deputy Morrissey tell me why would there not be. Remember the circumstances. There is a much greater inducement to them to register. Whatever Deputy McGilligan may say about the £2,500,000 in the employment fund established by the Budget, there is this £2,500,000 there to be spent.

Mr. Morrissey

When?

Mr. Lemass

Some of it may come from the local authorities and some from other sources, but there can be no denying the existence of the £2,500,000.

Mr. Morrissey

When will it be spent?

Mr. Lemass

It is being spent at the moment.

Mr. Davin

Where?

Mr. Lemass

In various parts of the country.

Mr. Davin

Ask the Minister for Finance.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Lemass

There is this sum of £2,500,000. All these people know this: that every penny of that money is to be spent upon wages; that every penny of it is going to some person who is registered at the employment exchanges. Persons to be employed under the various funds voted by this House will be found recorded in the labour exchanges, and those who registered at the various exchanges will get employment. Yet we are told these people do not register. I do not believe it. I believe they do register and are maintaining their registration. It costs them nothing. There is no trouble involved in registering.

Mr. Everett

The first of these may be absorbed, but the rest can wait.

Mr. Lemass

Nevertheless there is the prospect of employment for the person who maintains his registration. It is no trouble to maintain the registration and I suggest they certainly do it. For the past few months there was a smaller number on the register each week than in the corresponding period of last year.

Mr. Keyes

They are not placing the same reliance upon your promises.

Mr. Lemass

Deputy McGilligan asked: is there any evidence that the employment situation has improved. There is plenty of evidence of it. On the 24th February, 1936, the total number on the register was 141,886. On the last date for which figures are available, namely, the 18th May last, that figure had fallen to 110,817, showing a reduction of 31,000 odd for that period. Why do not Deputies tell me that reduction is due to the first Employment Period Order? They will not do that because they know how it has worked.

Mr. McGilligan

I can tell the Minister one thing, and that is that it is not due to the fact that 31,000 people got employment.

Mr. Lemass

Perhaps the Deputy will give some other explanation.

Mr. McGilligan

I make the same objection to you that you made to me when I made the same plea.

Mr. Lemass

We will leave the figures aside for the moment and look for some other indication as to what happened. The number of persons disallowed under the operation of the First Employment Order, 1936, was 5,000. Put that against the number by which the live register is reduced.

Mr. McGilligan

I will not accept that figure of 5,000.

Mr. Lemass

The exact number is 5,728.

Mr. McGilligan

How is that determined?

Mr. Lemass

By the records maintained by the efficient officers of my Department.

Mr. McGilligan

They record every person on a farm?

Mr. Lemass

Every person who was affected by the First Employment Period Order and who was debarred from receiving unemployment assistance.

Mr. McGilligan

That could not be done. You could not do it.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy does not know what we could do.

Mr. McGilligan

I ought to after three years.

Mr. Lemass

We have had various statements made in another House, which until recently was associated with the government of this country, and we have had statements made at various meetings throughout the country on the Unemployment Assistance Act. The operative portions of the Unemployment Assistance Act have been subjected to criticism, in so far as workers were alleged to be unwilling to accept employment when it offered from farmers in particular districts, and that there was difficulty in securing workers, and that persons who did get work nevertheless succeeded in continuing to draw unemployment assistance. I have had very searching investigations carried out by officers of my Department, specially instructed in the work, and no evidence of widespread abuse of the kind mentioned has been brought to light. Nevertheless, in dealing with agricultural workers the officers of my Department are not so favourably placed as they would be in relation to urban and city workers, because the greater number of these rural workers live long distances from the employment exchanges, and the great majority of them are never even seen by the local officers of the Department.

Mr. Everett

What about the Guards? Do they not see them?

Mr. Lemass

There is also the fact that the relationship between farmers and labourers in rural areas is of a much more intimate nature than the relationship that exists between employers and workers in the towns and cities. Farmers do not apply to the local exchanges, when there are vacancies to be filled, to the same extent that other employers do. They do not notify the Department that someone has refused employment, or in many other ways act in a manner which facilitates the Department in deciding the eligibility of persons receiving employment assistance to the same extent as employers do in urban areas. On that account it is considered desirable that the powers conferred by the Unemployment Act should be operated to the extent we propose in these Orders. We might have gone a lot further; we might have been quite justified if we proceeded to suspend the operations of the Act in rural areas in the spring and harvesting period. It is only a very limited class that has been made the subject of the Orders at all. And in respect of the two classes concerned, no hardship is going to be caused. No hardship was caused last year and none will be caused this year.

I do not want to follow Deputy McGilligan into the peculiar calculations he made in regard to the total number of persons in employment. The Deputy's figures were so inaccurate that no conclusion drawn from them could possibly be correct. I do not know how the Deputy made his calculations of the number of persons employed weekly in relation to the total contribution to the unemployment fund last year, as compared with 1931. The Deputy will find if he makes another investigation that the total number of insured contributors employed each week was 36,000 greater in 1935 than in 1931. That is not the number of persons put into employment, but it is the average increase in the weekly number employed. The average number of persons put into new employment in that period must necessarily have been larger, but taking the average for each week we get 36,000. That figure can be divided into its constituent parts. A very considerable part of that is due to increased employment in industry. Some part of it is due to the increased employment in house building, but the bulk of it must be attributed to increased employment in industry. Side by side with that there is an increase of 13,000 in occupations not insurable under the Unemployment Insurance Act. The number of persons employed weekly in these other industries increased by 13,000, showing that the increase in the average number of people employed each week in 1935 as compared with 1931 is 45,000. But in giving that figure I am deducting 3,000 odd, which may be attributable to increased employment in demestic service, which cannot be due to any measures adopted in relation to industry or agriculture and designed to promote employment in those occupations.

I have been often told by Deputies that we are putting as many people out of employment as we are putting into employment. I have been trying to track down the justification for that assertion by having most elaborate statistical inquiries made by the officers of my Department. I have got for each quarter the returns of the numbers of persons employed in every possible occupation to try to find out where these people could have been employed that we were told had lost their employment. I have not found it yet. I invited Deputy McGilligan by way of interjection during his speech to tell me the class of work that these people lost, and he did not do so. I invite Deputy Morrissey, if he speaks on this debate, to tell us the class of work that they lost. I do not know what it is. Here and there a business may have gone bankrupt; here and there a factory may have closed down; here and there a factory may have decreased production; but in each occupation the total employment has not diminished, except through seasonal or temporary causes, and the total employment has increased by a weekly average figure of 46,000. That is not bad, having regard to the circumstances which operated in this country during that period and the efforts of the Party opposite to obstruct the various plans to provide employment.

Mr. McGilligan

Are these 46,000 put into the insurance fund?

Mr. Lemass

In excess—in each week on an average.

Mr. McGilligan

184,000 more in the fund?

Mr. Lemass

Somewhere about that.

Mr. McGilligan

Is there? That is the test.

Mr. Lemass

The figures have to be adjusted to provide for the alterations in the rates which took place in the interval.

Mr. McGilligan

There is no interval now.

Mr. Lemass

If the Deputy puts down a Parliamentary Question I shall answer it.

Mr. McGilligan

I have, and got the answer—100,000, which, divided by four, is 25,000, not 46,000.

Mr. Lemass

I do not think the Deputy got that figure.

Mr. McGilligan

Yes, from you.

Mr. Lemass

I went to considerable trouble and expense in publishing an elaborate report instructing Deputies how to read, understand and appreciate the significance of various figures published in relation to employment and unemployment.

Mr. Morrissey

Did you read it yourself?

Mr. Lemass

I read most of it, anyway.

Mr. McGilligan

Did you appreciate one of the comments—that it was clear the Ministry had not increased unemployment? That is one of the conclusions.

Mr. Lemass

It was clear that there was no evidence to justify the assertion which Deputies were making that there had been an increase in unemployment, despite the substantial increase in population.

Mr. McGilligan

That the Ministry had not increased unemployment—that is one of the conclusions.

Mr. Lemass

I do not want to delay the discussion further. I want to say, in relation to the matter which I announced by way of interjection earlier, that the Government fulfilled its obligations in respect of this motion by affording the Dáil time to take a decision on it. This is a matter which was the subject of certain controversy some time ago. In order to ensure that such a motion when tabled would be considered, an arrangement was made, and that arrangement is being carried out in relation to this motion. Apart from that special arrangement, the motion is not entitled to receive Government time for consideration, nor is it entitled at present to priority in Private Members' time. If Deputies want a decision upon it, they are advised to take a decision to-night. If, however, they want to continue the discussion on it, I can give no indication when the discussion is likely to be resumed.

Mr. Morrissey

May I raise a point on that? The Minister announces that, after himself absorbing more than one-third of the time available to-night.

Mr. Lemass

Less than one-third.

Mr. Morrissey

More than one-third. I think it is very unfair, and shows that the Minister is afraid of discussion.

Mr. Lemass

The last time I said nothing at all, and you criticised me then also.

Mr. Morrissey

Will the Minister, having said nothing on the last occasion, and having given no information to-night, provide time on Friday?

Mr. Lemass

I cannot undertake to do that.

Mr. Morrissey

Will he provide it even in Private Members' time on Friday?

Mr. Norton

Will you, Sir, give a ruling as to whether a statutory Order of this kind can be shunted into a by-way in such a way as to prevent the House recording judgement upon it, unless it is prepared to take the Vote at the time dictated by the Minister? Are we not entitled to get adequate Government time, or Private Members' time, which is at present being taken from the House, for the discussion of a statutory Order of this kind?

An Ceann Comhairle

Technically, I do not think such a motion has priority. However, the point was discussed at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and it was decided to recommend that an hour or perhaps it was one and a half hours be given for the discussion of such a motion.

Mr. Morrissey

That is the first I heard of it.

An Ceann Comhairle

The suggested arrangement was mentioned on the last occasion on which a similar motion was before the House.

Mr. Morrissey

Orders are made by the Minister. They are placed on the Table of the House and the Dáil is supposed to be provided with an opportunity of saying whether an Order is to be annulled or not. The Dáil cannot come to a decision on this Order, or any other matter I submit, without getting adequate or reasonable time to discuss it. It is a very important matter. It is, as a matter of fact, taking the rights of this House away if we are only to get one and a half hours to discuss it, of which the Minister takes more than one-third.

Mr. MacEntee

Is he not entitled to it?

Mr. Morrissey

I am not disputing his right, even if he takes a full hour, provided there is time available. Of course, the Minister agrees with that, because he took two-thirds of the time on another occasion. Apart from this motion, I am protesting against the setting up of this precedent. As far as I am concerned, I should like to say something on this motion. It is because the Minister does not want any reply to the speech he made, that he wants a decision to-night.

Mr. Lemass

Another opportunity for discussion of the whole matter can be afforded.

Mr. Morrissey

When?

Mr. Lemass

By means of a motion.

Mr. Morrissey

It would not be reached by this time 12 months. There are motions on the Order Paper for over two years. The Minister is running away from discussion.

Mr. Lemass

It is quite possible that other Deputies who have motions down for discussion in Private Members' time would give it priority.

Mr. Davin

Are you satisfied, Sir, that it is right that the Minister should dictate the time for discussion of the motion? He took up that attitude.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair has given no such ruling. It was recommended by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, on two occasions, to the best of my memory, that an hour and a half should be afforded for the discussion of a motion of this kind.

Mr. McGilligan

Recommended to this House?

An Ceann Comhairle

To this House.

Mr. Norton

May I put this point?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair has no further power or discretion in the matter.

Mr. Norton

I suggest that this is the first occasion on which we have discussed an Order of this kind. Last year an Order was tabled too late to have an annulling motion submitted. Earlier this year we submitted an annulling motion, but when the motion was proposed we could not get the Minister to make a reply. This is the first occasion in two years on which we got the Minister's view on this Employment Period Order and we are surely entitled to analyse the reply which he has made.

Mr. Lemass

I have replied to a discussion on this matter lasting several hours on my Estimate.

Mr. Morrissey

The Minister has made a reply which consisted mainly of statements which are absolutely untrue. He knows they can be shown to be untrue, if the debate is allowed to continue, and it is because he does not want to have them exposed that, after speaking 35 minutes, he announces that the debate is to conclude.

Mr. Lemass

The matter was discussed for hours on my Estimate.

Mr. Keyes

As the Minister has indicated that he is prepared to give further time for the discussion of this motion, but cannot say exactly when, we consider it would be much more desirable to take that time whenever it is granted rather than leave the House and the country in the misguided state the Minister's statement will have left them in connection with this matter. This is a very serious question for the unemployed persons, if the series of mis-statements made by the Minister are left unchallenged. I certainly think that we are entitled to get time to discuss the matter, particularly in the light of the Minister's statement. Even if we have to wait a longer period than we expected, it would be preferable to discuss the matter fully and try to bring some real light into the Minister's mind as to the position obtaining in this country, and get him out from the barrage of figures behind which he has tried to shelter.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy might move the adjournment. It is now 10.30 p.m.

Mr. Keyes

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.