Dáil Éireann

04/May/1928

Prelude

PUBLIC BUSINESS. - REGISTRARSHIP OF SUPREME COURT.

PUBLIC BUSINESS. - TENTH REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.

PRIVATE BUSINESS. - LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL, 1928 (FROM SEANAD)—SECOND STAGE.

PRIVATE BUSINESS. - BUSINESS OF THE DAIL.

PRIVATE BUSINESS. - ESTIMATES FOR PUBLIC SERVICES.

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE 69—INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY REGISTRATION OFFICE.

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE 59—MARINE SERVICE.

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE 60—UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE.

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - GAELTACHT COMMISSION REPORT.

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - THE ADJOURNMENT.

CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. WRITTEN ANSWER. - ACQUIREMENT OF COUNTY LIMERICK ESTATE.

[975] Do chuaidh an Ceann Comhairle i gceannas ar 10.30 a.m.

Resolved:—“That it is hereby declared that the Registrar of the Supreme Court shall be the officer of the Supreme Court of Justice in whose office shall be enrolled for record pursuant to Article 42 of the [976] Constitution the copy signed for that purpose in accordance with the said Article 42 of every law which has heretofore received or shall hereafter receive the assent required by the Constitution to be given thereto.”— Parliamentary Secretary to the President (Mr. Duggan).

Mr. P.S. DOYLE:  reported from the Committee of Selection that they had discharged Deputy Hogan (Clare) from the Joint Committee on Standing Orders (Private Business) and had appointed Deputy Morrissey in his place.

Ordered: That the Report lie on the Table.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE:  I move the Second Reading of the Local Government and Public Health Provisional Order Confirmation Bill, 1928.

Mr. T. DONOVAN:  I object.

Objection taken.

Ordered: That the Bill be put down again on a day to be fixed by the Ceann Comhairle.

Ordered: That the business of the Dáil be not interrupted at 12 o'clock.

The Dáil, according to order, resumed consideration of the Estimates for Public Services in Committee on Finance.

MINISTER for FINANCE (Mr. Blythe):  I move:—

[977] Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £13,351, chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1929, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí na hOifige Clárathachta Maoine Tionnscail agus Tráchtála (Uimh. 16 de 1927).

That a sum not exceeding £13,351, 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, 1929, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Industrial and Commercial Property Registration Office (No. 16 of 1927).

MINISTER for INDUSTRY and COMMERCE (Mr. McGilligan):  The details of this Vote are set out. The staff provision in the Estimates for 1928-29 is abnormal. A very large number of applications have been received pending the passage of legislation and extra staff that was required to deal with these applications, and has to be continued for a little bit inasmuch as the work has not been completed yet. Normally, the cost of the salaries in this office should be in the region of £10,000, and the receipts from fees set down for the current year are only an estimate. It is not yet possible to point out how many of the applications that have been received are abnormal and what would be the normal flow of applications. In consequence the fees of the office and the travelling and incidental expenses are an estimate only. We have not yet had a full year to go on in order to get a proper basis on which to estimate our necessary incidental expenses. In connection with sub-head (c) this is mainly in connection with examinations to be held, and the expenses will be met by fees. In the fourth item there are subscriptions to two international unions. It is really two subscriptions to the Berno Union in its two different parts, one in connection with copyright and the other commercial and industrial property.

Mr. FLINN:  I found some little difficulty in hearing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and that is possibly due to the emptiness of the [978] Chamber at the moment, and that the qualities of the building from an acoustic point of view possibly are not very good in the early morning, and we might be induced to raise our voices a little for the benefit of those who want to hear. I would like to have heard a good deal more on the administrative side of this Department. It is a new department and one which undoubtedly has possibilities. I think, having regard to the fact that it is a new Department, and probably by now it has a certain amount of experience, it would be well that we should have a little more information about it than is given in the bald statement we have received. One thing we have been told is that the actual revenue which we have received this year is abnormal. I take it that is common ground due to the accumulation of British registration patents which are carried over here. I think it would be very valuable and a really significant thing if the Minister's Department would take some opportunity later of analysing the actual nature of the 13,000 or 14,000 applications which have come as a result of that, and the amount that has actually been registered. From that some very significant information would be got as to what foreign patents and foreign activities are regarded as valuable within the somewhat narrow ambit of the Free State. We have been told that as the income is abnormal in this year so the expenses have been artificially inflated as a result of the attempt to collect the revenue. Just as the revenue, at least from the patent branch, is likely to fall considerably in the next year, so the expenses of the auxiliary staff for getting it are likely to fall also.

We have on previous occasions expressed strong objection to this Department on certain grounds—that it was more expensive than was necessary, and that the cost of it as a revenue department was higher than the minimum cost of collecting that revenue with due regard to the interest both of the State, as one party to the contract, and the patentee on the other. Into that question I do not propose to enter at any particular length now further than to say that my objection on that ground is entirely undissolved. [979] We have had very little knowledge of what has actually been done by the Department. Every information I have had in relation to its staff is entirely to the credit of that staff, and I think there is in charge of it a man who is thoroughly competent to do the work, and thoroughly anxious to do it from the point of view of the public service. The only public activity we have seen of that Department was the attempt to enforce and put some real meaning into one of the sections of the Act which said that applications to the Department should come through the patent agents who were registered in this country—I mean who have a definite location here. If we can judge of the action of the Department in that matter, in which they did attempt to give a real meaning to that, we have reason to believe that the Department is anxious to do its work on these lines. On the last occasion we divided against this Vote on the ground that it was a revenue Department which had been set up on a scale of elaboration which was going to cost a great deal more money than the minimum which was absolutely necessary in the present circumstances to collect the revenue. On that ground we oppose this motion again, but we do not propose to divide again. While we know that you cannot, on estimates or things of this kind, alter the law, but you can make it quite clear by a vote what you want done. Shylock, I think it was, said “He who takes the means by which I live takes my life.” I think it is a thing which should be very clearly understood by any Minister as to what was wanted to be done in relation to the Department—I mean as to the basis upon which the Department is worked. If the Minister means to carry on that Department on that scale we are opposed to it, and it is only in that spirit we oppose the motion.

Mr. J.J. BYRNE:  I support the motion. I think that for the short time the Department has been in existence, and in view of the income that has already accrued, there can be no doubt whatever in the minds of Deputies that the setting up of this Department is a step in the right direction. For the [980] short time the Department has been in existence the fees paid to the Patent Office amounted to £28,300; fees for trade marks to £28,800; and fees for designs amounted to £300. That would go to show there is a very large volume of work to be dealt with by this particular Department, and it is work of great importance for the welfare of the country. In the estimate for 1927-8 there is on the expenditure side a figure of £20,616 and on the income side £22,200, so that even for the year that now lies before us it is estimated that at a minimum the Department will be self supporting, and possibly will bring in a revenue to the State. It must be remembered that the office was established under rather abnormal conditions. There was no organisation as to the mode of search. It was necessary to make a search through the Office of another country, and the only thing arising from those abnormal conditions was that a search through London was adopted, as the principle on which the Office should be worked.

England was the adjoining country, and it was a most natural thing to expect that most of the patents worked in the Saorstát would operate also in England. With Deputy Flinn, I think that some improvement is possible in this Office and, now that this abnormal period is passed, the actual work of the Office should be based on somewhat different lines. I think the time has come when we should abandon this method which we have incorporated into the Office for the moment. In contradistinction to the views held by Deputy Flinn as to the capability of the staff in charge of the Office, I think we have a highly efficient staff. I had the pleasure of meeting the Controller recently, and was absolutely amazed at the grasp and knowledge he had of this particular subject. I found that he was familiar with practically every patent system in the world; that he had been to Germany and France and had experience of the systems there, and so far as efficiency is concerned under his control, there can be no fear that the money which the House is asked to vote will not be well and efficiently spent. When we have said all these things, however, I suggest that the time has [981] come when we should make these searches for ourselves, independently of the English system. We should not be subsidiary to the English system. Although Deputy Flinn and I do not see eye to eye on all points, I agree that something might be done, and I suggest that it should be done at a later stage, to improve this method. The first thing I suggest is that we should search independently and issue patents independently of England.

Mr. FLINN:  Where do you suggest we should search?

Mr. J.J. BYRNE:  There are many places. There is London. There is the National Museum in Dublin, and there are other places.

Mr. FLYNN:  Is the Deputy suggesting that we should ourselves search in the British Registry or that we should have a wider ambit than fifty years?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE:  And is Deputy Byrne suggesting an amendment to the Act?

Mr. McGILLIGAN:  He is.

Mr. J.J. BYRNE:  I am afraid if I make that admission the Ceann Comhairle will rule me out of order.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE:  Is the Deputy suggesting an amendment to the Act?

Mr. J.J. BYRNE:  I am not, but I would suggest setting up a Commission to inquire into the actual working of the Act.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE:  And to amend it—the same thing.

Mr. J.J. BYRNE:  I will go so far as to say that so far as the efficiency of the Office, as now constituted, is concerned, and considering the short time it has been in existence under its present head, it undoubtedly shows efficiency. If we take the classifications of trade marks under the English system and that under the Irish system there is clear proof that the Irish Office is much in advance of the English Office. That is one of the reasons that I suggest that the Irish [982] Office should stand on its own footing and be independent. The system of classification in England, if I may use the term with all respect and without derogation to the English Office, is rather ancient, whereas the Irish system is entirely modern. I can only explain my meaning by pointing out that the classification of trade marks in England comes under fifty different heads, each one of which means a fee to the patentee, or the person registering the trade mark, of £3. Large firms may, in order to get a trade mark properly protected, require to use each and every one of these various classes so that under the English system the complete protection of a trade mark might cost £150. Under the Irish system the number of classifications has been reduced to nine, so that at the outside the highest possible cost for the complete protection of an Irish trade mark would mean a sum of £27. That, I think, is a great tribute to the efficiency of the Irish Office, in view of the short time it has been in existence. Take, for instance, the patenting of a thermos flask. If that has to be registered in England it has to go through five different classes before registration is complete. That would mean that registering in England would cost £15 but under the modern system which we have adopted and under the head of a very efficient Controller, the registration of a thermos flask would only cost the sum of £3.

These things go to show that the Irish Office is, at least, efficient and compares favourably with the English Office. I agree with Deputy Flinn when he suggests that the employment of an Irish patent agent to help an Irish patentee to complete his patent is a blot upon the existing methods of the Office. I want to keep as far as I can from the Act, for I know the Ceann Comhairle will watch me very closely, but I suggest that the administrative methods of the Office may be improved. I suggest that in England a man who is capable of dealing with a patent himself, perfecting his design and submitting it, can obtain a patent for £5. Since the last discussion on the subject in this House it came under my notice that a man was patenting a [983] little invention and I, like him at the time, was of opinion that he, being a perfectly competent man, could carry out all the processes necessary to deal with the patenting of that invention. The fees appear to be very moderate but there is a section in the Act which says that the services of an Irish patent agent must be used to complete that patent. I do not think that that is a fair mode of procedure as it means that a man in the Free State carrying out a patent is at a disadvantage compared with a man who is carrying one out in England. I am sure that Deputy Flinn has some idea of the amount to which a patent agent's fee runs.

Mr. FLINN:  I have.

Mr. J.J. BYRNE:  They would exceed the fee charged for registration by the Patent Office. That is one mode in which the present administrative system in regard to patents in this country could be improved. I was glad to see the manner in which Deputy Flinn approached this subject this morning. It appeared to me that on this occasion he, like myself, was anxious to improve defects in the present system, and I do not think that anyone would refuse to recognise that help when given in that particular way. The present system of administration is not perfect and, if a man who is capable of obtaining a patent in England can do so for £5, I do not see why an Irish patentee should not be placed on a similar footing. Moreover, there is the question of reciprocity of obtaining a patent in England in the Irish Office, but I am not aware that there is similar reciprocity for an Irish patentee obtaining his patent in the Saorstát and then endeavouring to get the patent in Great Britain. These are matters in which, in common with Deputy Flinn, I think the present mode of administration could be considerably improved, and I would ask the Minister when replying to this particular Vote to give us some hope that he will look into this matter of improving the present administrative system now existing in the Saorstát for, if he does, I have no doubt that Irish patentees and the country generally will benefit considerably.

[984]Mr. McGILLIGAN:  In answer to the remarks made, I would say that while I have stated that the provision for the staff in this Estimate is abnormal, the receipts and fees are estimated approximately to what we expect to get in a normal year. The fees are expected to be the normal fees. The provision for the staff is definitely abnormal. I am glad to have it recognised by both Deputies who have spoken that the staff in the office are definitely efficient and have what has been described as a proper attitude towards the whole question of industrial property controlled in this country. I feel that I will have to adopt Deputy Byrne's suggestion of a small committee to consider this matter from another point of view so that people would get to know what the law is before they begin to promote changes in it. From what I gathered this morning, the law has apparently not yet been understood. The provisions for search that we put into the Act take into consideration the facts which Deputy Byrne stated that most of the applicants who have already made application here will have already made or intend to make application for patents in Great Britain. Consequently it was thought that it would save expense, and it does save expense on the part of any prospective patentee to take out a search on the other side, but there is provision made for exceptional cases. As to searches, Deputy Byrne referred to the National Museum, but all the National Library documents have been transferred to the Patent Office, and whatever documents were available for search—we knew there were some when the Bill was being put through— are now under the control of the Patent Office. It is well established now that the documents are sufficient to enable a complete search to be made in this country. No patent agent could, in fact, except by the expenditure of more time and energy than the matter would be worth, go through these documents as there is a mass of stuff that has not been co-ordinated, referenced, or indexed. So, while we would move on to that eventually and while we had that intention when putting [985] through the Bill, we are not in a position just now to move on. There has been no criticism of this Estimate. I gather that Deputy Flinn will object to vote money to people who are described as efficient because he does not like the law as it now stands. That is not an intelligent way of dealing with the matter.

Mr. FLINN:  The Minister is wrong. I am going to vote against it for the purpose of indicating, in the only way possible on the Estimates, our opinion that there has been set up an unnecessarily expensive way of collecting revenue.

Mr. McGILLIGAN:  If unnecessary expense arises under the Act the Deputy has other ways of remedying it. He can introduce a Bill to change the Act, and he can change the fees by legislative proposals, but it is not intelligent to vote against charges which will have to be incurred because the Deputy is not satisfied with the law.

Mr. FLINN:  It is not a question of my intelligence. I quoted a great friend of mine, Shylock—“He takes my life who takes the means by which I live.” The one means we have on this and every other Estimate that comes up for taking away the life of the thing which is evil is to take away the means by which it lives. We are objecting to an unnecessarily expensive Department for the collection of revenue in an unnecessarily expensive way, which is not required for the benefit of the State or the individual.

Mr. J.J. BYRNE:  I would like to point out to Deputy Flinn that he is rather exaggerating the point which he is making in regard to Shylock.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE:  Shylock is too far away.

Mr. LEMASS:  I would like to ask the Minister a question in connection with the salaries paid to the officials of this office. It is a new office. It was only set up last year, and yet it is proposed not merely to pay a substantial basic salary to each of the chief officers, but to pay them a cost-of-living [986] bonus. I would like to know why that decision was arrived at. Would it not be a better decision to have fixed a basic salary which the Minister might think adequate for the position, and pay that without placing a cost-of-living bonus on it as well? Some arguments might be put forward for continuing the cost-of-living bonus in the case of officers who were in the service when the Government took over, but I do not think that argument could apply to new offices such as this.

Mr. McGILLIGAN:  I do not get the Deputy's idea of economy. He suggests that when we establish an office we should pay a man a fixed salary into which the cost-of-living figure would have to come, and preclude ourselves from getting any advantage of any future reduction in the cost-of-living figure. I do not like that idea.

Mr. LEMASS:  The point I want to make is that for the Controller of this office a sum of £750 should be adequate.

Mr. McGILLIGAN:  That is a different thing.

Mr. LEMASS:  Why give a cost-of-living bonus of £200 or £250? The same applies to each of the principal officers here who I take it are permanent and are not part of the extra staff who are being taken on to deal with this particularly busy period. They will be occupying these positions as long as they are in existence and it is possible that at some time or another the cost-of-living bonus will be abolished. I would like to ask the Minister if he considers that if there were no cost-of-living bonus, the basic salary which should be paid to the officials is the amount they are actually receiving or does he hope that in the course of time the cost of living will be reduced to such an extent that the cost-of-living bonus will disappear?

Mr. McGILLIGAN:  That is the whole thing. The Deputy is now on a somewhat different point to that he raised at first. He asked why we should have a bonus. Very well then. Instead of having a salary of £700 or £800 and bonus, you would have a salary of £900 [987] or £1,000, and there would be no chance of reducing that salary if the cost-of-living figure did fall. As explained before, there is a very big difference between the cost of living and the cost of living index figures. On the other side is the Controller overpaid at a salary of £900? I think he is not. If the Deputy wishes to get an idea of that I would ask him to walk through the office, get an idea of a day in the Controller's life, see the applications that come in, and the decisions that have to be taken, the technical skill that is required in taking a decision on any of the subjects that come before the Controller, and he will realise that a salary of £900 is not too much, if he has any idea of the value of ability.

Mr. CORRY:  How does the Minister reconcile the payment of a cost-of-living bonus on a salary of £750, with the fixing of a wage of 27/- or 29/- a week for workmen? Does he think that an official with a salary of £900 requires a cost-of-living bonus while a worker with 27/- a week does not, to rear his family and will he put the cost-of-living bonus into operation as regards workers?

Mr. McGILLIGAN:  The Deputy must understand that there is a distinction. For instance, a Minister gets a big salary and is worth it, and a Deputy only gets £360 a year.

Mr. CORRY:  I think that such a situation is outrageous. I think that when you put a farthing per pound on sugar in order to pay a bonus of £200 to officials with big salaries such as these, it is scandalous.

Mr. CAREY:  Bring it up at the Cork County Council.

Mr. CORRY:  I will be there too.

Vote put and agreed to.

Mr. BLYTHE:  I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £3,515 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1929, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí na Muir-Sheirbhíse (Merchant [988] Shipping Acts, 1894-1921, Crown Lands Acts, 1829-1866).

That a sum not exceeding £3,515 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, 1929, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Marine Service (Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894-1921, Crown Lands Acts, 1829-1866).

PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTER for INDUSTRY and COMMERCE (Mr. Dolan):  This Vote is for the administration and control of merchant shipping and the coast life-saving service. There is nothing new in the different items we have this year. The Vote is much on the same lines as in previous years. The items are set out in simple form, and there is an explanatory note wherever it is considered necessary. I think that Deputies can easily understand the different items. The duties are entirely governed by statute. We have a staff of officials to carry out the supervision necessary to ensure that all ships trading with our ports fulfil the conditions of the Merchant Shipping Acts. We have, in addition to that, the control of the coast life-saving service. We have 53 stations working in charge of volunteer crews. At each of the stations there is an official in charge of the volunteer crews. All the stations are now connected by telephone. Heretofore there was a difficulty in connection with that, but they are now entirely linked up by telephones. The Appropriations-in-Aid are made up of fees received for services rendered by our officers. In addition to that we receive a payment of £800 from the Irish Lights Commissioners in respect of the services of our Engineer Surveyor.

Mr. LEMASS:  In connection with this Vote, probably the most effective criticism that could be offered is that in consequence of the Government's activity in other matters this Vote is so small. I presume it will be in order to raise the matter of the Government's inactivity in the matter of merchant [989] shipping legislation. It is a long time now since the Minister for Industry and Commerce first stated that merchant shipping legislation was in contemplation by the Government.

Mr. DOLAN:  On a point of order, I submit that any matter connected with legislation cannot be raised on this Vote. This is a Vote for the administration of powers we have. I think that the matter referred to by Deputy Lemass might best be introduced on the Vote for the Ministers' salaries.

Major COOPER:  It is not in order to raise a question of legislation on any Estimate.

Mr. LEMASS:  I am prepared to take the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle on the matter. It seems to me that we have such a lot to discuss on the Vote for Ministers' salaries that it would be no harm to spread it over other Votes.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE:  I presume that what the Deputy really wants is to urge the Minister to bring in legislation in regard to merchant shipping. I am afraid that that could not be raised on this Vote.

Mr. LEMASS:  I take it that we are not entitled, not only to discuss legislation, but even to suggest it?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE:  No. In fact, the suggestion of legislation involves the criticism of existing legislation.

Mr. LEMASS:  This is a Vote for marine services, and, apart from certain coast life-saving functions which are performed, there is no service performed that is of any value to Ireland. Practically all the companies operating from Irish ports are foreign companies, and even in these foreign companies it is impossible for Irish masters or mates to get berths. On the question of the development of a mercantile marine in this country, I thought that it would be on this Vote that it would be discussed——

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE:  I see now what the Deputy wants to raise. I do not think the Deputy can raise it merely because the title of the Vote is Marine Services. The essence of the whole debate on Estimates is that the [990] Oireachtas passes certain laws and that the Ministry in office have to administer these laws and have to get money from the House to administer them. Criticism of the Estimates may be criticism as to how the Government is carrying out its duties under the existing laws, and, as has been pointed out, that criticism might go so far, for radical reasons, as to refuse to give any money at all. That is the procedure that could be adopted. I think if the Deputy wants to advocate a revision of the marine shipping code he would have to do it by the adoption of some other method such as putting down a motion calling on the Government to bring in legislation to deal with the whole matter. It is manifestly clear that a Deputy in Opposition could not bring in legislation of that kind, as it would involve an enormous technical question. The only way it could be satisfactorily debated would be by putting down a motion. That may be led up to by a question or a motion raised on the adjournment, but it cannot be raised here on a small Vote for a particular service.

Mr. MOORE:  Will it be in order on the Vote for the Ministers' salaries to criticise the Minister for failing to develop an Irish mercantile marine or to suggest help towards such a service? I suggest it would be in order to do that.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE:  Deputy Lemass would be in order if he could keep his vocabulary throughout the whole of his speech in line with Deputy Moore's, but I do not think he could make a speech on the subject without advocating legislation. The Minister could not do what Deputy Moore suggests, without legislation, or it is held that he could not. It seems to be the maxim that on a Vote for a Minister's salary, you can discuss every conceivable thing he has to do but, in Parliamentary theory at any rate, the Minister cannot pass laws. He only suggests them. Both Houses of the Oireachtas pass them.

Mr. AIKEN:  I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister whether this branch of the industrial department has any control over such bodies or any representatives of such [991] bodies as the Carlingford Lough Commissioners? I suppose there are other such bodies established throughout the country still carrying on and collecting harbour dues on boats coming into the harbours and into the Irish Free State ports. I would like to know if the Government of the Free State has any control whatsoever over these bodies or any representation on them.

Mr. DOLAN:  The question of the Carlingford Lough Commissioners is a matter on which I will give the Deputy information later on. I have not any information on it at the moment.

Mr. LEMASS:  On the matter of sub-head F—Coast Life-Saving Service, I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what arrangements have been made with the Board of Works to prevent unnecessary duplication between the work in connection with this sub-head and the work done by the Board of Works in the same connection. I notice in the estimate for the Board of Works there is a Vote of £500 for alterations and improvements in the Coast Life-Saving Stations and a sum of £1,392 for maintenance and repair. We are here asked to vote salaries for inspectors and superintendents in connection with these stations. We must presume that the Board of Works also have inspectors and superintendents going round examining these stations to see whether they are in repair and in working order. Unless there was a rigid check upon the work there is a danger of duplication and unnecessary expense. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to inquire and let us know if there is any such duplication, and if there is such duplication to take steps to discontinue it.

Mr. DOLAN:  There is not any duplication. The Board of Works carry out any structural improvement work that has to be done in the other Departments. The Board of Works carry out these. These life-saving stations are purely for the purpose of life saving around the coast. They are all linked up and there have been certain improvements carried out in these stations. There are improvements going on for [992] linking up the services. For instance, they are being connected by telephone. The Board of Works are responsible for that. We are responsible for training the volunteers and for their efficiency. Under that head there are certain expenses. Generally speaking, that is the position. We control the life-saving services all round the coast. We have a staff for that purpose. But any work in the way of improvements there is to be carried out is carried out by the Board of Works and it is debited to the other Departments.

Mr. LEMASS:  Would the Board of Works be responsible for ensuring that there was a supply of rockets at the different stations, and that they are in good order?

Mr. DOLAN:  No. We are responsible for that.

Mr. McGILLIGAN:  Is there in the Board of Works Estimate any item other than the item under the head of alterations and improvements to stations—that is, to the buildings; is there any other item to which the Deputy refers?

Mr. LEMASS:  No, but the point is if there are inspectors and superintendents visiting these stations for the purpose of ensuring that the crews are familiar with their work and that the rockets are there and in perfect working order, and if there are also inspectors of the Board of Works visiting them to ensure that the stations are in proper repair, it appears to be a direction in which some economy might be possible by combining the duties of these inspectors.

Mr. McGILLIGAN:  There may be an economy, but I do not think it will be so great, because the duties are entirely distinct. The Board of Works are simply in charge of the maintenance of buildings, to see whether alterations are needed, and things of that sort. They inspect from that point of view. The inspectors and superintendents referred to in this instance are quite different types of people. It may be suggested that a Board of Works inspector going round for a particular [993] object should have assigned to him other duties that are now carried out by these superintendents. That matter has been examined before, and the best division of work seemed to be that the Board of Works inspectors would look after their own side and that one man would go around dealing with the life-saving stations. I do not think much good would come from a change.

Major COOPER:  Is there not a precisely similar parallel in the case of the Gárda Síochána? The Board of Works maintains the barracks in which the Gárda Síochána reside, and at the same time the inspectors and superintendents of the Gárda Síochána carry out the inspection of all the barracks and the staffs that occupy them. I do not think Deputy Lemass would go so far as to suggest that the Board of Works' inspectors should carry out the duties now assigned to the superintendents of the Gárda Síochána. As regards the service carried out by the life-saving department, the inspectors' duty is to see that the crews are properly trained, and they give them any advice that is necessary. The Board of Works, on the other hand, is simply responsible for the structural matters.

Dr. TUBRIDY:  In regard to the coast life-saving stations, are there boats supplied to each station? Where do they get the boats and crews?

Mr. McGILLIGAN:  Boats and crews?

Dr. TUBRIDY:  Where do the crews get the boats?

Mr. DOLAN:  The Lifeboat Service is all around the coast.

Dr. TUBRIDY:  Evidently there are crews. Have they boats?

Mr. McGILLIGAN:  They have.

Mr. DOLAN:  As a matter of fact, our service does not go on the water at all.

Dr. TUBRIDY:  That is what I wanted to find out.

Mr. McGILLIGAN:  But there are boats.

[994]Mr. DOLAN:  The Deputy understands that the boats are used by the Lifeboat Service. That is a different service altogether, and it is not under our control. It is a voluntary service, but we ensure that the Lifeboat Service is linked up with ours.

Dr. TUBRIDY:  I knew that.

Vote 59 agreed to.

Mr. McGILLIGAN:  I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £150,726 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1929. chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí i dtaobh Arachais Díomhaointis agus Malartán Fostuíochta, maraon le síntiúisí do Chiste an Díomhaointis.

That a sum not exceeding £150,726 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, 1929, for Salaries and Expenses in connection with Unemployment Insurance and Employment Exchanges, including contributions to the Unemployment Fund.

Mr. DOLAN:  There is nothing new in this Vote. It is the Vote we have been passing from year to year. The items are set out in an explanatory note. Of course, the money required for the payment of benefits under the Act is derived from three sources. We have the Government contribution and the employers' and workers' contributions. The contribution of the State is fixed. It will vary in the proportion of about one-third of the joint contribution of the employer and the worker. From the questions that have been asked during the year it is evident that some Deputies are interested in the question or think that the applicants for benefit under the Act have been, some of them, harshly treated. It is well for Deputies and workers to understand that several appeals can be taken from a decision refusing an [995] application for unemployment benefit. If an appeal is turned down in the first instance the matter then goes to the chief insurance officer, then to the Court of Referees, then to an umpire, and finally to the Minister for his decision. No injustice is done to the worker, and I think that in every case brought forward during the year it was evident that the worker got every fair play.

Mr. LEMASS:  I would like to ask for some information in connection with this Vote. It appears to me that the reduction under sub-head G—State contribution to the Unemployment Fund—which I understand is based on the amount received from the sale of stamps, shows a reduction. Does that indicate that the Minister anticipates that during the coming year there will be a reduction in the number of people in insurable employment? We have found it difficult to get accurate information concerning the progress made in increasing the number of employed persons, and this figure would appear to indicate that the Ministry anticipate that the number of employed will be decreased during the year. The same conclusion would be arrived at from the reduction under sub-head J— Appropriations-in-Aid. I understand the Government are entitled to take an amount equal to one-tenth of the contributions received for the purpose of defraying expenses. Again, it would appear that the contributions that would be received from the sale of stamps would be reduced during the coming year. I understand also that the amount which the Government is entitled to take as an Appropriation-in-Aid is to meet the working expenses of the Act. The amount mentioned here—£112,000—exceeds by £9,000 the total estimated expenses under the Act during the year. I would be very glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would explain first of all if it is anticipated that the number of people in insured occupations will be reduced during the year, and, if so, for what reason that reduced Estimate is put in; secondly, why it is intended to take as an Appropriation-in-Aid from the Fund a sum exceeding by £9,000 the total estimated [996] expenditure for the administration of the Act.

Mr. MORRISSEY:  There are a few points I would like to raise on this Vote and they are mainly ones that were raised before. Last year, I asked the Minister to look into, and see if he could change, the forms that are sent out to applicants for unemployment benefit. What usually happens when a person makes application for unemployment benefit is that after some time he receives a form stating that his claim has been disallowed under Section 8 (4), or something like that. The applicant does not know anything about Section 8 (4) or whatever the Section of the Act may be, and does not know why his claim has been disallowed. I would suggest that the Minister might get a form which would be more explanatory.

With regard to the question of registration, which was dealt with by the Parliamentary Secretary, he was quite right when he said that persons living a long distance from the nearest branch unemployment exchange need not attend every week, or every day, to sign the form but they have to attend to register and make their claim and, in many parts of the country, they have to travel from ten to twenty miles. I think that some change should be made in order to obviate what is an undoubted hardship on those applying for unemployment benefit. In passing I might also say that it has been brought to my notice recently that there is very great delay in many cases in coming to a decision on claims. I had a case last week where a person applied for unemployment benefit and heard nothing further about the matter for two months. He then received 2/6 and had to make a fresh claim, of which he heard nothing up to last week. He may have heard about it since but it seems to me that there cannot be any good reason for a delay of two months. It is certainly a great hardship on a man who is unemployed, with stamps to his credit, and who makes an application, to have to try to exist for two months without benefit.

The main point I want to deal with, and it has been dealt with very often here before, is that of disallowing benefit [997] on the grounds that the applicant is not unemployed, in other words that he has land. Of course, I know that the Minister denies absolutely that this is general, but we claim that it is general, and I can give, I think, dozens of cases in my own constituency. I will just give one case as an illustration. A man with four acres of poor land, who worked all last summer and part of the autumn with the North Tipperary County Council, made an application when the employment ceased. It was refused on the ground that he was not unemployed; in other words that he could get employment. It must be remembered that this was in the month of December. I would like the Minister to explain what employment a man could find on four acres of rather poor land in that month. If it were this time of the year it might be argued that the man was not unemployed—that he would have work to do for himself— but surely that argument could not hold in the month of December. That is one case, and it is typical of very many others. There is very great dissatisfaction in that respect with the administration of this Department, and while I would not for a moment argue that such men should be exempt from paying towards unemployment benefit if they were in insurable employment, because I can see the dangers of that, still I hold that if they are compelled to pay they ought to be entitled to the benefit when they can prove that they are unemployed. These are the principal grievances so far as the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Fund is concerned. I think it is not an exaggeration to say that there are probably thousands of such cases in the country.

Mr. McGILLIGAN:  It is not an exaggeration; it is a complete misstatement.

Mr. MORRISSEY:  That is the Minister's view. If the Minister were coming into contact daily with these people, or coming into contact with cases where a claim was disallowed because the applicant had four acres or two acres, even whether the number would be 200 or 2,000, the hardship remains, and we are asking the Minister to remove that [998] hardship. My contention is that, if a person contributes while in insurable employment he is, when disemployed, entitled to get the unemployment benefit. I would like, if it were possible, that the Parliamentary Secretary would give us information setting out how many persons over fifty years of age, and how many persons over sixty years of age, have applied for refunds. The Parliamentary Secretary may not be able to give that information offhand, and if not I suppose I can get it afterwards by means of a question. I would like the Minister to deal with the question of the disallowance of claims on the ground that the applicants have land.

Mr. A. BYRNE:  Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell us how the conversations or negotiations that were entered into with the British and the Northern Governments regarding reciprocity are going on? The Minister is no doubt, aware that many Irishmen are being discharged from British-registered ships, and that there are many workers on the Border who have stamps to their credit but who cannot get payment because an agreement has not been arrived at between the three Governments. Some time ago this matter was raised here, and we were told that there were difficulties in the way, that the Northern and the British Governments could not come to any agreement with our Government. There are very many hardships as a result. I would go so far as to say that there are many thousands in the Free State who have large numbers of stamps to their credit who are unemployed and who cannot get any benefits out of this Act, although they have paid for them. These men were principally the crews of ships, and men who have been working across the Border. I am sure that many Deputies got complaints some time ago from the Belleek pottery workers and other workers in that district regarding men who lived just on our side and worked just across the Border, and the reverse case—men who worked on our side and who lived just across the Border. These people have been deprived of benefit for many years. I would like to know whether further conversations will be held with [999] representatives of the two Governments with a view to removing the hardship in the case of these men.

Dr. O'DOWD:  Deputy Morrissey mentioned the case of people who, while in employment, paid for stamps, and who, when unemployed, cannot get any benefit. The number of these people is far greater even than Deputy Morrissey has stated. The Parliamentary Secretary is probably aware that in his own constituency these people number several hundreds, and in the neighbouring constituency of Roscommon there are also hundreds. In the Arigna mines practically every miner is affected by this position, and it affects all the road workers in the rural areas. I would like to know—perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary cannot give us the information now—the number of people who have been refused benefit on those grounds in the Sligo Labour Exchange during the last twelve months. He will find that the number of these people in Sligo, Leitrim and Roscommon alone practically comes to a thousand. When Deputy Morrissey said that the number affected runs into thousands in the whole country he was not exaggerating at all, because in the West of Ireland alone I think that the number would be at least a thousand.

Mr. GOULDING:  I wish to join with Deputy Morrissey and Deputy O'Dowd in pointing out the hardship this matter inflicts on many people. I have before me a pitiable letter from my own county written by a road worker who is really very badly off. He tells me that he has seventy-eight stamps in his book. He had been working for the county council for a considerable time, but he happened to own a small amount of land which is absolutely useless to him. He has no stock but a couple of goats, and for some time he was in receipt of home help. He tells me that although he has this number of stamps on his book he is unable to get anything. Why are such men made to pay towards unemployment insurance at all? If they are deprived of the benefits they should not be asked to pay.

[1000]Mr. J.J. BYRNE:  I think that when Deputies criticise this Estimate they should remember that the Minister is very tightly bound down by statute in the administration of these particular moneys. The whole administration of this fund is controlled by a statute enacted in 1920. In common with Deputy Lemass, when I first looked at this Vote and saw that it was being reduced for the coming year I formed the opinion that some hardship was likely to result to the unemployed. But if Deputy Lemass will look at it again he will see that the reduction does not actually mean an actual reduction of this grant.

Mr. HOGAN (Clare):  What does it mean?

Mr. J.J. BYRNE:  It means a tendency to reduce the number of unemployed. I had a very long argument with the officials on this particular point, and I was very obtuse—I frankly make the admission.

I thought that the Vote meant what Deputy Lemass has suggested, but it was proved conclusively to me that it actually meant the reverse. It was pointed out to me that a greater amount of unemployment means that the grant must be actually greater. If the grant is reduced it means that the number of unemployed is automatically reduced.

Mr. HOGAN (Clare):  Wipe out the grant altogether and you wipe out unemployment.

Mr. J.J. BYRNE:  For 1924-5 the State contribution to this fund amounted to £244,000; for 1925-6 it was £221,000, and for 1926-7 £222,000. On this question of the reduction of the grant I might point out that a vast improvement in unemployment might take place, and might not be reflected in the Vote. I can only explain my meaning by suggesting—as I am sure Deputy Lemass has heard from our platforms very frequently—that by the new tariffs 10,000 extra hands were employed. Out of this 10,000 there are quite a number of hands who do not come within the ambit of this [1001] Act at all. A number of juveniles under 16 obtained employment in the various tobacco factories, jam factories, sweet factories and clothing factories, and none of this extra employment is reflected in this Vote. I think Deputy Lemass is fair, and I point these things out to him to show that this Vote is really a very ridiculous thing to base any argument on. You can scarcely form any conclusion either from the increase or the diminution of it, but I suggest that it really means a reduction in unemployment rather than the point of view that Deputy Lemass has taken.

I am also interested, like Deputy Morrissey, in the small holders of land. I am quite sure that Deputy Morrissey knows more about the difficulty of the problem than I do. He has far greater experience of it. But I think that he will admit it is exceedingly difficult to deal with. Two factors enter into it by which the Minister is undoubtedly bound: (1) they must be unemployed; (2) they must be unable to find suitable employment. The Minister is rigidly bound by these stipulations and has no liberty of action. If they exist, the unfortunate person must abide by the result according to the statute. I would point out that the real question that should be put to the Minister is: did these people receive sympathetic treatment? Information I have obtained shows that undoubtedly this particular class of people has been sympathetically treated, so far as the powers of the Minister went. I have been informed that in 75 per cent. of the cases claims for unemployment have been paid to small holders. In 1926-7 the claims numbered 2,595; the claims allowed numbered 1,820; and the claims disallowed, 775. That did not finish it, as the question of appeal arises. The number of appeals was 378, of which 198 were allowed and only 179 disallowed. So that I respectfully suggest to Deputy Morrissey that as far as the Minister is concerned he has done everything in his power to help the people affected by this particular part of the question.

Like Deputy A. Byrne I have raised the question of reciprocity time and [1002] again, and I have been worrying the Minister so much that I have almost become a nuisance to the staff. This is one of the most difficult aspects of the question that remains to be dealt with. How it can be dealt with I do not know, but I suggest that some consideration should be given to the Minister for the part he has played and the restricted power that he has to deal with it. Deputy A. Byrne knows as well as I do that the British Government was approached for a financial adjustment of this question as to migrant workers. At first they agreed to the suggestion, but when they found out what it really meant, and that we were going to get a good thing out of the agreement they refused on second thoughts. They saw that the number of Irish migrants to Great Britain was exceedingly large. I have lived in England and I can vouch for the truth of that. On the other hand, the number of migrants from Great Britain to the Free State is almost negligible, so that this is really an aspect of the question which the Minister has no power to deal with. Of course the criticism has been exceedingly reasonable, but I suggest to Deputies that they should bear in mind the restricted liberty which the Minister enjoys and the restricted power at his disposal for the administration of the Act.

Mr. P. HOGAN (Clare):  I hope the Minister is satisfied with the explanation of Deputy Byrne as to some of the matters raised, when he tells us, for instance, that because the contribution to the unemployment fund is reduced it means a reduction in the number of unemployed. I wonder did the Deputy ever think of such people exhausting their right to benefit which would be a cause for the reduction in the Government contribution? He also reminded Deputy Lemass about the number of juveniles employed in the factories. I wonder did he ever consider that juveniles are not registered on the unemployment list for benefit?

Mr. J.J. BYRNE:  I suggested that that is why the Vote was a very unreliable index as to the actual state of unemployment.

[1003]Mr. HOGAN:  There is also the fact that a number of people of 16, 17 and 18 years of age were never employed and never registered. Does the Deputy think of these? Now I come to the main criticism I have to make of this Vote. We are accustomed to the Minister telling us that he cannot find the true index to the number of unemployed because the people do not register. He asks why the people do not put their names on the list. I suggest that there are a good many reasons for them not registering, and I will give him one from my own county. In Co. Clare there are three Exchanges. From Whitegate the nearest Exchange is at Limerick or Ennis, both of which are 30 miles away. Between Whitegate and Ennis there are such towns as Scariff and Tulla, one of which is 18 miles away and the other 12. Yet the Minister tells us that he cannot find any reason why people do not register! He wants them to walk 30 miles from Whitegate to Limerick or Ennis in order to register.

Mr. McGILLIGAN:  They should use the Post Office.

Mr. HOGAN:  Does the Minister deny that people have to attend at the Exchange in the first instance in order to register?

Mr. McGILLIGAN:  They can send letters.

Mr. HOGAN:  I want an unequivocal answer. Does he deny that these people have to attend at the Exchange in the first instance in order to register?

Mr. McGILLIGAN:  People who are 30 miles away have no necessity to do that.

Mr. HOGAN:  Then people who are 18 miles away?

Mr. McGILLIGAN:  Certainly not.

Mr. HOGAN:  It is a wonder that that information is not more generally known.

Mr. McGILLIGAN:  I gave it out here a dozen times.

[1004]Mr. HOGAN:  I never heard it until now.

Mr. McGILLIGAN:  The Deputy should have been attending, and should have conveyed it to his constituents.

Mr. HOGAN:  I have attended.

Mr. McGILLIGAN:  I mean attended to what I said.

Mr. HOGAN:  I invariably try to attend to what the Minister says. There is no good in trying to get out of the position in that way. People have come to me who have been told by the officials that they have to attend at the Exchange to register in the first instance, and that subsequently they can send in the necessary forms.

Mr. McGILLIGAN:  People can——

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE:  Let the Minister stand up and make a statement.

Mr. HOGAN:  I will give way to the Minister.

Mr. McGILLIGAN:  People outside a six-mile radius have not to attend.

Mr. LEMASS:  Has that information been conveyed to the officials?

Mr. McGILLIGAN:  The officials in the Exchanges know that outside a six-mile radius people need not attend at the Exchange.

Mr. LEMASS:  It appears that they do not know.

Mr. McGILLIGAN:  Is that to be taken as evidence against me and against what I said? Surely I am entitled to as much credence as the Deputy?

Mr. HOGAN:  I am not asking the Minister to take what I say. I have been told by people who have had to go thirty miles to attend. It is no use in pretending now that there is not a complete register of the unemployed because people have to walk twenty or thirty miles to register. We never had any statement to the contrary explicitly made until now.

[1005] I am also anxious about the class of people to whom Deputy Morrissey referred who have patches of land and who work for the county councils. There are a great number of those people in my constituency. They register and their contribution for unemployment is stopped. They have perhaps three or four acres of mountain; they have been working for the county council which is their principal means of occupation for ten or fourteen years past. Yet they are told that they do not come under the terms of certain provisions of the Unemployment Act. There is no consideration for them. They are sent to the court of referees which means that they are taken from parts of my county down to Limerick and have to pay their expenses. The matter is going on eternally and it is nearly time that the Minister should make some regulation as to what the position of these people is, and as to what amount of land or income they must have in order to show that they do not come under the provisions of the Unemployment Act.

I suggested before to the Minister that he should consider the advisability of allowing the court of referees to do something like circuit work and to travel from one county to another instead of bringing people from the farthest part of the County Clare— Ballyvaughan—to Limerick and putting them to very considerable expense and inconvenience and then getting no return either in the form of benefit or recompense for the expense they incurred. I should like that the Minister would give some explanation on all these matters, and some assurance that he is prepared to consider any suggestions made to him on these lines.

Mr. COBURN:  I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister the position of workers who go to England, and, having worked there for a year, come back, and when they make their claim for unemployment benefit find that it is denied them. I have one or two specific cases in mind. A worker in the building trade was placed on the unemployment list here; he then migrated to England and was awarded 152 days' benefit, but, as I pointed out here before, instead of staying at home [1006] and drawing that benefit week by week until the total benefit allowed was exhausted, he went to England and worked for six months, was then disemployed and came home. I am sure the Minister will agree that these workers should, at least, be entitled to the benefit granted to them previous to going to England. It seems that according to the Unemployment Act they must have twelve additional stamps upon their cards before they receive the benefit they were granted. I could give specific instances of cases of hardship as far as these particular workers are concerned.

I hold, no matter what difficulties are in the way, that in the matter of Great Britain or Northern Ireland and the Free State there should be reciprocal arrangements between the three Governments. Reciprocal arrangements have been secured as far as the professional classes are concerned. The dentists, the medical profession and the legal profession have reciprocal arrangements. It seems to me there is no question of partition as far as they are concerned, and the same applies on the question of income tax. I cannot see why there could not be some arrangements made whereby the workers who migrate to England, and are compelled to pay unemployment insurance there, should get benefit when they return to the Free State. There are very great hardships, as I have already said, as regards the building workers, because there are numbers of them in the County of Louth who have been amalgamated with the R.U.B.T.W. of Great Britain. The fact that the unemployment benefit is denied to these workers also means that they are denied what is called the Friendly Society benefit rates. So that it is a double grievance so far as these particular workers are concerned. I would like if the Minister could give this aspect of the situation very grave attention in the near future. Deputy J.J. Byrne, I think it was, seemed to try to convey to the House the idea that the numbers unemployed are less this year simply because the Estimate is reduced, but, as Deputy Hogan very truly remarked, there are large numbers of people unemployed who refuse to go to the Labour Exchanges for the [1007] simple reason that it is no use to do so. Their benefits had been exhausted during the slack time. These are not taken into account. I would be very glad if unemployment had declined, but, so far as I can see, I believe this country has not seen rock-bottom as far as unemployment is concerned. I do not mind what people may say at Clery's Restaurant and in public hotels in the city to the effect that there is a good time ahead. I believe that unemployment is going to increase. I only hope that some serious step will be taken to deal with the many points brought before the Minister in connection with the worker and the Unemployment Insurance Act. Candidly and honestly I say I wish we were not discussing this question of unemployment at all and that we could get rid of it. But as long as it is there, and as long as the workers have to contribute to unemployment insurance, I think the least that should be done is to give them the benefit to which they are entitled. I hope and trust the Minister will do something in connection with those workers who have migrated to England and Northern Ireland and have to contribute under the Unemployment Act in these countries, but are denied the benefit here in Saorstát Eireann when they come back.

Mr. KILROY:  I wish to join with other Deputies in their remarks in regard to the migratory labour problem. My constituency is very largely affected, and it is extremely important that the Minister should do something immediately to alleviate the difficulty there. There are about 6,000 migratory labourers in South Mayo. I do not know the numbers of North Mayo, but there the problem is very serious also, and requires immediate attention. The people in my district are nearly all very poor, and depend largely on what they earn by migrating to England and Scotland. They suffer very much from the fact that they are not in a position to claim or receive unemployment benefit due to them in respect of payments contributed while out of the country.

Mr. H. BRODERICK:  There are just a few matters to which I wish to draw [1008] the attention of the Minister in connection with unemployment insurance. A number of workers employed in woollen mills and saw mills find themselves in a very serious position. They work, say, for a period of six weeks and become unemployed in the seventh week. They make their claim at the local Exchange office, and have to give a six days' waiting notice before they receive any benefit. Then they resume work again for a couple of weeks. Their second period of employment may extend over a continuous period of seven weeks. They become unemployed in the eighth week, and have to give a six days' waiting notice again before they can receive any unemployment benefit. That is a great hardship on these workers. As these people do not work at anything except in the mills I would urge that they should be regarded as being in continuous employment. I do not think a break of a couple of weeks should be used to deprive them of unemployment benefit. The people only engage in mill work. I think the two periods I referred to should be regarded, for unemployment benefit purposes, as a continuous period.

It is anticipated that at the end of this year a big number of men will be leaving the National Army. I would like to know what provision the Minister proposes to make for these men. As they will have no stamps to their credit they will be unable to get credit. Under the Act of 1924 no person can get benefit unless he has had twelve weeks' work in the year with a corresponding number of stamps. The Act provides that these men, leaving the National Army, will not be entitled to any benefit. That means that, at the end of the year, we will have thousands of men thrown on the labour market and joining the ranks of the unemployed. There will be no work for them. I hope the Minister will be able to do something for men leaving the National Army who find it impossible to get work.

Mr. DOLAN:  Deputy Lemass raised a point in connection with the figures in the Vote. The figures are affected in two ways. One [1009] is that a refund was received during the last financial year by way of an adjustment arrived at with the British Government for closing the funds and in connection with former payments which had been made. When we introduced our Supplementary Estimate in February last we dealt with the figures then disclosed for actual expenditure. The original figure for 1926-27 was an estimate, but when we came to the Supplementary Estimate we were able to deal with the actual expenditure. That necessitated the adjustment referred to by Deputy Lemass. We had savings under the following sub-heads: sub-head A, £12,000; sub-head B, £250; sub-head C, £150; sub-head E, £100; and sub-head F, £40. Under Appropriations-in-Aid the saving was £11,650. That arose in the final adjustment of the accounts as disclosed on the actual basis of expenditure and receipts, and last year was abnormal to that extent.

Deputy Morrissey raised a point in connection with delay in dealing with certain cases. I am sure the Deputy knows that there has been delay only in very few cases. The percentage of delay is very small. In looking over the figures for the year, I find that 98 per cent. of the cases were dealt with on the spot by the local branch managers. In only about 2 per cent. of the cases was there delay. Wherever there has been delay it was caused by some irregularity in the claim. That, naturally, had to be inquired into. Generally speaking, the administration of the funds in that respect does not necessitate any serious delay or inconvenience.

Mr. MORRISSEY:  Might I point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that I did not suggest there was any widespread delay, but only in certain cases?

Mr. DOLAN:  In certain cases. I would be glad if the Deputy brought to my notice any particular case of hardship that has come to his notice, and I will have it inquired into. As to the question of registering at the different exchanges, I think the procedure in regard to that has now been made pretty clear. Deputy Morrissey [1010] and, I think, Deputy Hogan, referred to it. It is not now necessary for a worker to attend personally to register if he lives over six miles from the nearest employment exchange.

Several Deputies dealt with the question known as reciprocity, and about the endeavours that we have made to have reciprocal arrangements made with the Northern Government and the British Government in connection with our insured workers. I refer Deputies to the position as disclosed in the answer given by the Minister on the 19th December, 1924. We exhausted every means, by negotiations and suggestions on our part, to obtain reciprocity, but we failed. It was admitted by all parties in the Saorstát that we, on our part, had done everything possible to secure it, and that we had gone as far as it was possible for us to go. The reason why reciprocity could not be obtained was because of the decision of the other Governments not to agree to a working arrangement. The present position is that if one of our nationals is working in England or in Northern Ireland he has to have his cards stamped with the stamps issued in those places, and when he is unemployed he can claim benefit from either of the two Governments. He can only get benefit from our funds for the stamps affixed here during the time he was working in the Saorstát.

The question of land cases was raised by several Deputies. It was stated that small land-holders were treated harshly on account of the fact that, while working on the roads or otherwise, they had to pay for insurance stamps, and then, that when it came to a question of claiming unemployment benefit they were not allowed any. I have a fairly exhaustive list dealing with that matter before me. Of course we are governed by statute, but there is no statute prohibiting such a worker obtaining benefit. Each case is examined entirely on its merits. It is gone into in the same way as other claims. The case comes first from the local branch manager, then to the chief insurance officer, and then to the Board of Referees, and finally to the Umpire and the Minister. I have a table before me dealing with these cases.

[1011] Let me take a typical case, that of an applicant whose occupation is that of a road labourer. His age is 34. He held ten acres of land, the valuation being £2 10s. and the rent £1 18s. 6d. The area tilled was half an acre. The stock of the holding is not stated. The other persons residing on holding with the applicant were his mother, aged 69 years, his sister, 30 years, and his wife, 23 years. The applicant assisted in cultivating the half-acre. This case went ultimately to the Umpire, and the final decision arrived at was to allow the claim.

There are several cases of that kind. The total number of these claims received in the period 19/6/'26 to 1/7/'27 was 2,595. Of these 775 were disallowed by the chief insurance officer; 1,820 were allowed. Appeals were lodged in 378 cases. The Court of Referees received 377. The discrepancy is explained by allowance of one case at appeal stage. The Court of Referees made certain recommendations. They allowed 198 cases, and disallowed 179. The chief insurance officer, on the Court of Referees' recommendation, agreed with 318 and disagreed with 59. The cases were then submitted to the Umpire, and the Umpire's final decision was to allow eight and to disallow eighty-seven.

Out of the total number of land cases finally examined there were only 87 cases disallowed out of a total of 2,595. Deputies can see, therefore, that each case was carefully examined. Of course we are governed entirely by statute in all these cases. Deputies will realise that it is a fairly difficult fund to administer, and that the officers concerned require to have great tact and knowledge in dealing with cases. I think that on the whole they are doing their work to the satisfaction of the various parties concerned.

Captain REDMOND:  With regard to the question of reciprocity, I would like to ask if the Minister has considered the position of Irish nationals who are serving on British ships and if he has put forward their claims before the British authorities? As the Minister possibly knows, Irishmen serving on British ships, though they may have to [1012] pay towards unemployment benefit, are not entitled to any benefit if domiciled in this country. That causes great hardship to men living in places like Dublin and Cork and in my own constituency of Waterford. I know men who served on British ships and who are unemployed to-day. They are entitled to no unemployment benefit. I would like to know if the Minister has taken any steps in regard to this matter, and, if so, what the results have been. Of course nine-tenths of the ships on which Irish seamen serve are ships that sail under the British flag. That being so, I think it is only right that something should be done for these men.

MINISTER for INDUSTRY and COMMERCE (Mr. McGilligan):  That matter was dealt with in connection with the general question of reciprocity between Great Britain and Ireland but we are at a standstill on it. On the general question of reciprocity, the question of seamen was adverted to at the start. They are a special problem in themselves. They are differentiated from others because of this fact—I do not know whether Deputy Redmond may have meant his words to be an accurate expression of what he thinks to be the case—that they have not to pay contributions. The master of the ship pays. The whole question of reciprocity stands as the Parliamentary Secretary has stated. I explained the position very fully a few years ago in reply to a question put here. Since then repeated attempts have been made to get the matter dealt with. It was taken up at one stage by officials of the Trade Union Congress here who also dealt with a similar matter in Northern Ireland. They succeeded in bringing officials from both sides into a conference. Those who were present at that conference, and saw the results of it, agreed that the propositions put forward by the officials representing our side were definitely reasonable, that they exhausted all possible alternatives and that the Northern Government showed no disposition to accept any of these alternatives. Deputy Coburn said he did not see why in a matter with Great Britain and Northern Ireland there could not be reciprocity. There can be reciprocity. If Great Britain [1013] and Northern Ireland say no, there is not going to be, and that is the difficulty we are in.

Captain REDMOND:  My question was more with regard to the British Government.

Mr. McGILLIGAN:  I am only pointing out the steps that we took to deal with the reciprocity question in general. The Northern situation was the more immediate one, because we have so many of our people crossing the Border to get work for certain periods and then coming home again.

Captain REDMOND:  Perhaps the British Government would be more amenable than the Northern Government.

Mr. McGILLIGAN:  It was the British Government that broke off negotiations in the first instance. Deputy Lemass raised a question about the appropriations-in-aid. He referred to the figure of £112,000 under sub-head J and said the expenditure was so much less than the sum estimated. The Deputy must remember that there are other expenses in connection with unemployment to be taken into account. For instance, on my own Vote there would have to be an allocation of a certain amount of salary for certain chief officials who deal with unemployment insurance as well as with other matters, and there is no allowance made for certain types of staffs. As to the amount which is borne on my own Vote, the main Vote for the Department of Industry and Commerce, portion of it will have to be allocated against unemployment insurance administration. In addition to that and other Votes, there are moneys to be paid for Government premises and Post Office charges for services rendered to the unemployment exchanges, as well as charges to the Stationery Office for services rendered. The £112,000 is the maximum appropriation allowed under the Act, and that is pretty fully charged against unemployment insurance.

Deputy Morrissey asked a question as to refunds under the 1926 Act. The figures with regard to payments to date are: In the case of those 50 years and over, 7,500 people received payments amounting to £25,000. In the case of [1014] people of 60 and over, there were 1,270 individuals concerned, and the payments amounted to £11,000.

The Parliamentary Secretary dealt with land cases in one way. I want to deal with them in another way, the way that I have always dealt with them. There is no regulation—I have often repeated this and I do not think it is denied—for forbidding people getting the benefit of unemployment insurance if otherwise entitled to it simply because they have land. Whether they get it or not depends upon the adjudication in each case. I have asked Deputy Murphy—I think the Deputy has been rather persistent in this matter as well as Deputy Mullins and others—on several occasions to bring forward cases. We can only deal with this on the basis of cases brought forward. The Parliamentary Secretary has shown that there is no great percentage of land cases turned down. It is only on that basis that one can find out whether there is such hardship in individual cases as would make a prima facie case against the administration. On the landholders' side, I would like to have certain cases brought forward so that we could have all the circumstances gone into: the area of the land, the person's industrial history, the value of the land occupied and other items. Only, however, when we get individual cases can we take a proper decision on the matter.

Motion put and agreed to.

Progress ordered to be reported.

The Dáil went out of Committee.

Progress reported.

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

“Gurab é tuairim na Dála so nách ndéanfaidh ná rudaí atá molta ar an bpáipéar bán—ar a dtugtar Statement of Government Policy on Recommendations of the (Gaeltacht) Commission—an Ghaeltacht do shábháil, agus nách fuláir don Rialtas scéim chruinn ar a mbeadh moltaí indeunta do cheapadh láithreach agus suim áirithe airgid do leagadh amach chun na moltaí sin do chur i ngníomh gan a thuille moille.”—(Proinnsias O Fathaigh.)

[1015]Mr. KILROY:  In concluding my remarks in connection with the Gaeltacht, I desire to say that I am sure we all recognise that the population of the nation is our greatest national asset, and that the question of how to save the population of the Gaeltacht is a difficult problem. In my opinion, the surest and best way of saving it and, incidentally, saving the national language, is to develop industries there, not merely the fishing industry, but also the other industries for which the localities are suitable. That means practically every industry which supplies the requirements of the nation. There is no reason why the people in the Gaeltacht could not produce our cooking utensils or our ships just as well as the people in cities. As a means of securing capital for this industrial development I suggest that it is well worth consideration that the Government would guarantee a return of a reasonable percentage on the capital invested in these industries. It would be the cheapest and best way of doing it. It would be the easiest way of raising a large amount of capital. It does not necessarily mean that they would have to pay the amount of the money guaranteed, because we are in the midst of our own market, and that is a great assurance for the success of any of these industrial movements that might be developed. To be in the midst of the home market is the greatest of all advantages, as we thus secure advantage over those sending in foreign goods. If the problem is taken up in this way we need not fear the result of developing the Gaeltacht.

General MULCAHY:  We were told yesterday evening in the course of this debate that the Government proposals in regard to the Gaeltacht were absurd and ridiculous, and that they made no attempt to solve the problem because there was no sincerity behind them. We can be very calm in face of such charges. Personally I am prepared to accept the measure of the strong attacks on the Government's proposals as the measure of sincerity of the people here who make them. I would like to say to the Deputies, to whom I give credit for sincerity, that we have gone far beyond the day when it is any [1016] help towards solving a problem by saying that it is a national problem, an historical problem, a social problem, an educational problem, an economic problem, as Deputy Fahy took great pains to remind us in the course of his speech. We have gone beyond the day when it is any use for a Deputy giving, as Deputy Hogan did, the numbers to which the population of these areas has been reduced during the last thirteen years, or whatever number of years he mentioned, and then saying that the policy of the Minister for Agriculture is not going to change that, while the Deputy himself makes no attempt to say what is going to change it.

Mr. HOGAN (An Clár):  What the Minister put his signature to.

General MULCAHY:  If the Deputy, instead of quoting the reduction in the population in those areas and hinging a long speech on the suggestion, which is not accurate, that the Minister for Fisheries will have responsibility for seeing that the Civic Guard know Irish, approached the question as to what way the proposals in the White Paper differed from the recommendations made by the Commission, and how any difference is unreasonable and could be avoided, it would be a contribution to the situation, but the speeches we have had from Deputy Hogan, Deputy Tubridy and Deputy Kilroy were classical samples of things that are no use in discussing this type of problem. I say that because it is quite possible that the Deputies who made these speeches are sincere in feeling that they are making a contribution to the situation. They are really only taking up their own time to a certain extent, and misleading their intelligence in the matter. They mention a string of industries and say these things will solve the problem in the Gaeltacht, but they are put in a much more systematic form in the Report of the Commission than they have been put in any of the speeches made here. Between the slate quarry in the Killeries, mentioned by Deputy Kilroy, and putting these slates on the roof of a house, a certain number of processes come in. We would like to see Deputies concentrating on what [1017] these processes are, and on the amount of men, money, and machinery required. That would be a contribution to the debate, and that is what we are trying to do.

I would like to refer particularly to a statement made by Deputy Tubridy yesterday. He suggested that housing in the Gaeltacht requires attention. We know it does, and we know that facilities for improving houses, additional facilities to those provided elsewhere, are required for the Gaeltacht. It is proposed to provide those facilities. Out of a sum of £1,000,000 that was set aside in 1922 for housing, a sum of about £5,000 remained. The Claddagh was a problem, the problem of an Irish-speaking population in an urban area where the housing conditions were scandalous. We are approaching the problem of how we can deal with the housing in the Claddagh. There are 200 houses there already. We have a plan for taking away these by degrees and replacing them by 233 houses in that neighbourhood. The preliminary plans are under consideration by the Galway Urban Council for 100 houses. In addition to the housing grants which recent legislation makes available, we are making available the £5,000 that was left out of the £1,000,000 grant in 1922.

The Deputy said that the Galway Urban District Council intended to deflect this money for the purpose of beautifying the city for the sake of the tourist traffic.

Dr. TUBRIDY:  It is always wise to give a hint.

General MULCAHY:  The Deputy makes a statement that there is not a shadow of any possible evidence for, and he attacks the Galway Urban Council because of this. Now, if we are going to lose, or to do without, in solving the problem of the Gaeltacht, the economic problem, the ordinary individual who goes about his business in a plain way, and who undertakes the duties of local government, whether on county councils or urban district councils, the type of individual whose wavelength is not such that he receives things in terms of spiritual, national and traditional problems, but who will face the work that requires to be done [1018] there—if these people are going to be done without and are going to be antagonised by other people who speak big as Gaelic Leaguers, and if the work is going to be ruined by the men who speak big for the Gaeltacht, then the Gaeltacht is going to suffer. It is absolutely incorrect that the Galway Urban Council intends, or, if it intended, would have any power, to deflect from the purpose of housing in the Claddagh, any special grant made for that purpose.

Dr. TUBRIDY:  I had information that they did intend that.

General MULCAHY:  We have gone beyond the time when the kind of speeches we have heard can be of any help, and I suggest to Deputy Fahy, as the chief spokesman for the language and the Gaeltacht on the Opposition Benches, and as secretary for the Gaelic League, that we expect more from him in his criticism of the educational side of the proposals here than to say that there are twenty recommendations, thirteen of which are not accepted, that four are adopted, and that three are accepted with a kind of avoidance of one point or another. What we are trying to do, and what the suggestions in the White Paper are proposing to do, are pretty clearly set out. Let me diverge for a moment to say that I do not stand, and will not stand, for one moment for the Gaeltacht Commission Report or for the proposals in the White Paper—I will not stand for either the whole or any single one of them for a moment—if it is shown to me by some other people that any proposal there can be bettered or that any proposal is wrong. That is the attitude of the Government as a whole on the matter, and there is no use in saying from the Opposition Benches that while they and all the Deputies in the House are trustees in the matter of the language and the Gaeltacht, they have no onus for putting up plans. They have an onus on them for seeing that such plans as are being put up and worked are the best possible plans that can be made, and they are responsible for making their contributions for the betterment of these plans if they can make them any better. I suggest all that to people who are sincere.

What we are trying to do is to [1019] see established in the Gaeltacht the complete educational ladder along which the people in the Gaeltacht can rise to such development as a proper education can bring them to. Will the Deputy take the proposals that are in the report and take the statement of the Government in the White Paper, point out where there is anything omitted that might be put in, and come to close grips with the situation? Take, for instance, the primary schools. The report gives a clear idea of the position in the primary schools and the case of teachers incapable of teaching through the medium of Irish. All we know from Deputy Fahy is that the Government did not accept the proposals in the report, but what the Government did was, after pointing out certain difficulties which the Deputy is aware of, to suggest that a committee of managers and teachers and representatives of the Department of Education should be set up to investigate the question in all its bearings; that is, for removing the teachers from the Irish-speaking districts who were not capable of imparting education through the medium of Irish. Does the Deputy agree with the suggestion that the matter should be referred to a committee of managers, teachers and representatives of the Department of Education. or, if he disagrees with it, what does he propose? I put it either to the Deputies who are trustees for the language or to the Government, who have the authority for executive action at the present moment, that neither to you nor to us has the Deputy made a suggestion as to what he would replace that committee with.

A recommendation is made in the report to complete, or begin with the completion of, the ladder on the secondary education side. The White Paper says in regard to that:

Where the parents show desire for such Secondary Education, the Government are prepared to consider the provision in the Gaeltacht, as has already been done elsewhere of facilities for Secondary Education in advanced classes of the larger of the existing Primary Schools in each of [1020] the localities recommended as a centre in paragraph 68 of the Report.

The Deputy refers to it in his argument simply as a paragraph number to be put on the minus side. He tells us he believes there are in Kerry, in Ring and in Connemara, people who want secondary education.

Mr. FAHY:  On a point of order, I said I know there are people in Kerry, and the Minister was not here when I spoke. I said definitely there are people in Kerry and, if the schools are provided, you will get them in Connemara. It is your business to get the schools first, not to have the people begging for them.

General MULCAHY:  Let us say there are in Kerry, Ring and Galway people in the Gaeltacht who want secondary education. Does the Deputy think the suggestion of the Minister for Education is reasonable or not? I want to get at what the Deputy wants to suggest. In the case of university education and scholarships, there are statements made in the White Paper. Does the Deputy agree that what is said there in respect of scholarships is sufficient and reasonable, or what else exactly does he want? The contribution that must be made is not to point out that the gulf between primary and secondary and university education must be linked up and overcome, but in terms of teachers and books and scholarships and all that; it is in these terms that a contribution has to be made. If money is given to Galway University for the purpose of introducing Irish as the language in the university, is the Deputy who represents Galway aware—does he know—what is going on in the university and is he satisfied with the way the university is using the funds?

Mr. FAHY:  I said I was satisfied, and the Minister was not here at the time.

General MULCAHY:  I wonder if everybody else is satisfied, and I wonder, if the Deputy is satisfied with it, why he does not add in Clause 21 as one of the things the Government is doing? Our aim is to set up an educational ladder in the Irish-speaking districts and, on the economic side, to give [1021] a stimulus and assistance to agriculture as an industry, and to assist any other industry that may be established there, and that will put these places on their feet. For that you want machinery. A Bill setting up a particular type of machinery was held over for further discussion until we would have had this discussion. A lot of obscurity of one kind or another has been thrown around the recommendations in the Gaeltact Commission report in connection with the particular type of machinery. Let us examine the machinery. First there is the educational side. The Minister for Education is made responsible for that, and the trustees of the language and the Gaeltacht, having control over the Minister for Education in this House, can make him answerable for the way in which the educational side in the Irish-speaking districts is being carried out.

You want machinery on the other side, and you want people to be responsible to you for the economic side of the thing, and then you want someone to be responsible for the full co-ordination of all matters so that the educational side will feed into the industrial side, and the use of the language in administration will be so carried out as to grip the thing firmly in the Irish-speaking districts. You are offered the Minister for Education on one side, for education; you are offered the Minister for Lands and Fisheries on the other, and you are offered the Executive Council as the co-ordinating authority. Around the machinery that, in a Bill put before the Dáil a short time ago, it was proposed to set up to deal with the economic side of matters, a big lot of obscurity has arisen with regard to what the Gaeltacht Commission report has recommended. I refer Deputies to paragraphs 185 and 186 of the Gaeltacht Commission report. There is this paragraph in it:

“Many witnesses have urged the necessity for setting up a special Ministry to look after all matters connected with the Gaeltacht. Others have recommended that, with a view to dealing with matters affecting the economic conditions at least, a special body somewhat on the lines of the late Congested Districts [1022] Board should be set up. The Commission has given very careful consideration to both suggestions, and it is of opinion that the setting up of any such special administrative authority would be neither desirable nor practicable, under the changed conditions of Government in the country. The formation of a special body charged with the work of administering any special matters separately in the Gaeltacht would present difficulties.”

A suggestion was made for a Commission being set up that would have inspectorial general duties and would co-ordinate in an inspectorial way. Now, the setting up of machinery of a particular kind is being opposed here because it is suggested that the Gaeltacht Commission Report advised against it. A demand for a certain amount of money is made here because it is suggested that the Gaeltacht Commission Report recommended it. The Gaeltacht Commission Report did not do any such thing. Our plans on the industrial side—and Deputy Law has asked some pointed questions about them—are that the Ministry of Fisheries would be reorganised, made a Department of Land and Fisheries, and would be given control of the Land Commission work and of fishery work and of all the additional things that might in any way be required to be carried out specially in the Irish-speaking districts.

It is suggested that a new Ministry is not going to do more than the Land Commission separately and the Fisheries Department separately did. The new Ministry will have much more to do than the other two Ministries separately, and the new Ministry will be provided with the necessary staff. The first thing is to get the machinery and plans, however perfect they may be, in a general way; until you have them revised by the machinery which is going to carry them out your plans cannot be perfect, and until your plans are perfect you do not know what you want money for.

Deputy Law has asked if there will be additional funds in the hands of the new Ministry to carry out the additional work necessary in the Gaeltacht, and [1023] the answer is yes. He has asked whether the money can be spent without previous Treasury control. The suggestion that the control of finance from the Department of Finance is harsh can be overdone. There need be no control from the Department of Finance delaying good schemes or preventing the application of money at the discretion of the Department on schemes generally approved by the Department of Finance. To suggest at this particular moment in respect of a new Department and new machinery for dealing with the economic side of things that, except Deputies see a certain sum of money on paper put in big black noughts, nothing is going to be done, is to suggest something that is silly.

In their consideration of the matter the members of the Gaeltacht Commission who prepared that report were fully alive to the undesirability that the full help of the administration and the financial help of the fully-fledged Departments of State would not be available to the Gaeltacht. Arrangements will be made that every Department of the State will be responsible for paying its own attention to the Gaeltacht. But the special Department of Lands and Fisheries will have the special responsibility of dealing with these matters that are additional. If additional work on industrial lines is to be done in the Gaeltacht rather than elsewhere, that additional work will be done by the new Department. If additional services are to be provided or additional facilities are to be provided for the improvement of houses in the Irish-speaking districts, services which are not provided throughout the country as a whole, these additional services and moneys will be available through the new Ministry. What Deputies are doing is, they are opposing the setting up of machinery to deal with these matters without any clear conception in their own minds of what they would replace that machinery by, except to say that that machinery is not in accordance with the spirit or in consonance with the sentiments that the members who prepared the Gaeltacht Commission Report had.

Mr. LAW:  Would the Minister allow [1024] me to ask him a question? He has given a very definite and specific answer to one of my questions, for which I thank him. I would like to get as clear and specific an answer to the other questions I touched on. That is the question first of Treasury control. The Minister knows that I never put up the case that there should be no financial control of this or any other Department. What I was anxious to ascertain and to have cleared up is this, that where work such as the Minister has indicated will be carried out for the Gaeltacht, whether the expenditure of the money which is to be expended on this would be available for this work in the Gaeltacht? Would this money be able to be spent by the Ministry of Fisheries as a working Department without previous reference on detailed matters to the Ministry for Finance? The Minister, I am sure, will appreciate the distinction and the difference. It is one thing that the Minister for Finance should retain general control over expenditure. It is quite another matter that there should be an insistence that every specific question should be brought before him, that is to say, whether particular allowance should be given for the provision of boats or nets or for the encouragement of cottage industries or drainage works; that each question, irrespective of the sum of money, would have to be referred for previous sanction to the Department of Finance. The point is really not a question of financial control, but the whole question is whether you are to get the work done by the people who are the best judge of what is to be done?

General MULCAHY:  I do not know whether I fully appreciate the details of the Deputy's question, but if there is to be a general policy of giving loans of a particular kind I certainly do not think that each particular loan should go to the Department of Finance for authority and sanction. But if the Deputy means, in connection with the assistance to the improvement of houses, that each particular case is to come before the Department of Finance, I think that would be an absurd thing to suggest.

Mr. LAW:  I did not suggest that.

[1025]General MULCAHY:  I am afraid I have taken more time than I intended to take. What I do want to stress is, as I said before, you have the Gaeltacht Commission Report to give you the facts about the situation. The White Paper gives you the facts about the Government's intention. If the Government's proposals are not satisfactory in the light of what is either proposed or what is thought by the Opposition or the Dáil generally to be practical, then let us know these things. Do not let us be throwing into the situation simply something that is confusing matters and that is really rhetoric.

Dr. TUBRIDY:  Does the Minister think, therefore, that the Minister for Fisheries, being so successful in keeping the fisheries alive, will keep the Irish language alive?

General MULCAHY:  That is just what I say. You cannot come down to facts.

Dr. TUBRIDY:  That is one of the facts, and you do not answer it.

Mr. DE VALERA:  Deputy Fahy's motion is that the proposals, or the indications of policy, if you like, that are contained in the White Paper will not save the Gaeltacht, and that it is the duty of the Government to frame a clear scheme of proposals which will be feasible, and to set aside a certain sum of money in order that these proposals could be put into effect. That proposal contains very clearly our view of the whole matter. In the first place, we say that these proposals set forth in the White Paper, or the indications of policy set out in the White Paper, will not save the Gaeltacht. I am going to concede, at the start, that there are certain good things in the White Paper, but that it will not meet the problem I am as clear in my own mind as the Minister for Agriculture is. We have a right to expect something more than the odds and ends that are in that Report. When this Commission was set up, with a great flourish of trumpets, the President wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Commission. Only that the time is so very short, lest this would remain hidden in the musty shelves with other blue papers, I would [1026] like to have that letter inserted in its entirety in the records.

General MULCAHY:  And to make up for the people who did not read the Report.

Mr. DE VALERA:  In any case, it would be something by which we could judge the difference between the promises and the performances. My object in quoting a few of these paragraphs is to indicate what was promised three years ago, what we were led to expect would result from the setting up of the Gaeltacht Commission three years ago, and what we have now got in the White Paper. The President said that this Commission was being set up “in the hope that proper inquiry will lead to a clear and definite national policy in respect of those districts and local populations which have preserved the Irish language as the language of their homes.”

There is not much indication of a clear and definite national policy in these odds and ends, as I have already called them. Then he tells us what our obligations to the Irish language are. He says:—

“By the Constitution of the Saor-stát, Irish is expressly recognised as the national language.”

And then he says:

“We believe that the Irish people, as a body, recognise it to be a national duty, incumbent upon their representatives and their Government as on themselves, to uphold and foster the Irish language, the central and most distinctive factor of the tradition which is Irish nationality, and that everything that can be rightly and effectively done to that end will be in accordance with the will of the Irish people.”

We know that that is the case for the majority of the Irish people. But we know that there are people who have a very different outlook. When I was listening yesterday to the Minister for Finance talking on this subject. I asked myself how long more would it be until he would be converted to the idea that we were all fools on this question of the Irish language; that we were all dreamers when we had ideals [1027] like these. I ask myself how long more will it be until he will say about the Irish language what he said about the Republic a few days ago—that we did not want it and that we were better off without it. On another occasion he spoke in a different way about partition, when the most opprobrious words in the English language were applied by him to those who would think of partition. It will not be very long until he says the same of Irish, if we are to judge by his words yesterday, when he got an opportunity of making a little sacrifice, a very little sacrifice, to show his respect for the national language by putting in the Chair a man who would be able to understand the language when it was spoken, a clear case where a knowledge of the language was a necessary qualification. If a Deputy makes in Irish a point of order to the Chair, the Chair cannot understand him and cannot decide upon it.

Mr. HOGAN (Minister for Lands and Agriculture):  On a point of order, are we discussing the Gaeltacht now?

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE:  We are supposed to be discussing it.

Mr. DE VALERA:  I hold that we are. I will readily prove the relevancy of my remarks in that matter. I am sure I am not going to be put off by this. I have got here in the President's letter these words:

“The neglect and contempt, the ignominy and the abuse to which it has been subjected, are a part of our tragic history. These very things and their unfortunate effects, instead of infecting us with their spirit and making us also contemptuous and apathetic, ought rightly to enliven our purpose to undo the damage of the past—the more so, because the possession of a cultivated national language is known by every people who have it to be a secure guarantee of the national future.”

The particular paragraph I have read is not, I find, the one that has reference to the matter at issue, but there is this in it, that it is our duty, if we wish to get the people who are living in the Gaeltacht to have a right [1028] respect for the language, in every position where respect could be shown it, where it would be likely to have an influence on the people, that we ought to show it that respect. Here was a case yesterday of showing to the people living in the Gaeltacht how much that language of theirs was appreciated. It was not a case where it was an ornament. It was not a case of a mere demonstration of respect and affection. It was a case where, as I say, Irish was absolutely necessary, and I want to prove that it was absolutely necessary, because the presiding officer here, when a Deputy speaks in Irish, is not in a position to decide a point of order if it is asked him in Irish. He is not in a position to know what the Deputy who is speaking on the subject has said and whether his remarks are relevant to the question or not. He is not in a position to say if the Deputy is speaking irrelevantly.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE:  I am loath to interrupt the Deputy at all, but the Deputy is now discussing something done by this House on Wednesday last and not Deputy Fahy's motion.

Mr. DE VALERA:  My remarks, I suggest, are relevant to the question of how Irish can be saved, and one of the ways that has been recognised since the Gaelic League was set up is to give to the people who speak the language in the Gaeltacht a respect for the language. We, in this House, have shown that we have no respect for it, and even in case one pretends to be a supporter of the language, who says that it is his political objective to restore the language——

Mr. HOGAN:  On a point of order. Have you not ruled that the question of the election of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle yesterday is not to be discussed on this motion?

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE:  That is so, but the Deputy is not at the moment discussing it. At the particular moment when the Minister interrupted him he was not discussing the election of Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I think he was discussing a speech made by the Minister for Finance.

[1029]Mr. DE VALERA:  I started by saying that we have got something very different in the performance from what we were promised. I have said that we had a measure of it when we saw what the Minister for Finance did yesterday, as opposed to what he said, and it is by what he does, and what the Ministry opposite do, and not by what they say, that we have to judge them. We have very good reason to believe that what we had evidence of yesterday here is being done in other directions. The little sacrifice that was necessary was not to be made.

Mr. HOGAN:  Come to the Gaeltacht.

Mr. DE VALERA:  We have it here quite clearly that the Minister seems to feel that the thing stings a bit.

Mr. GOREY:  The stings of the ant.

Mr. HOGAN:  Come to the Gaeltacht.

Mr. DE VALERA:  We were told that the central and most distinctive factor of the tradition which is Irish nationality is that everything we do, no matter what sacrifice is to be made, will be with the will of the people, and those people pretend that all these sacrifices can legitimately be made. But there is not a single case where there has been the slightest bit of difficulty in putting through any one of the proposals that they did not run away from it. There is no suggestion there of the last farthing and the last drop of blood, and we would think, when people can borrow money for wars and for other matters, that at least in this matter, which is regarded as being a most vital national matter, they would go to some little expense in order to do it. They have admitted that the will of the people is behind them. When some of us came into the House we came in with the hope that one thing we might do, or help to do, was to save the language. In the Treaty debates there were a number of people who, like the Minister for Finance, if we could believe him, put forward the preservation of the language as one of the reasons for the acceptance of the Treaty. They said—and often in arguing with some of them what I said was quoted—“We can get time to do other things, but we will have no time [1030] to save the Gaeltacht if we do not do it at once.” Look at the map, see the little spots marked red on it, and see the portions around them which indicate, roughly, the areas from which the Gaeltacht has retreated in the last forty or fifty years. Judge by the figures which Deputy Hogan has given of the death in the Gaeltacht of the Irish language, and anyone who wants to see Irish restored as a spoken language will be able to judge as to what efforts should be made as a serious attempt to save the Gaeltacht, and what efforts are being made in the present circumstances by the Executive.

It has been said that Deputy Fahy has not criticised the suggestions of the Government in detail, that there is no particular case that we entered into in detail and showed where the Government had not done things that it might have done, or where there are things which the Government have neglected. Now, when we think of the Gaeltacht problem, and when we remember its difficulties—because we do know it is difficult, and it is precisely because it is difficult that this patchwork of recommendations will not save it—we would expect that there would be something, such as the Minister for Agriculture suggested there ought to be, to deal definitely with the problem. There is a sad lack, for instance, of any general outlook, or any general attempt to deal with the problem, such as the Minister for Agriculture himself made in the case of the creameries. I am not throwing bouquets at the Minister for Agriculture——

Mr. HOGAN:  We want none from you.

Dr. HENNESSY:  You would not know how.

Mr. DE VALERA:  No, I would not. That is the truth.

Mr. HOGAN:  I would rather that you did not.

Mr. DE VALERA:  All right. But I say this, that there was evidence anyhow in that scheme of a general conception of the problem, and there was an attempt to solve it. But there is nothing in this White Paper, as I said, except a few little touches here and [1031] there—no definite, defined scheme. What is the problem? There are really two problems. There is the human problem, the problem of the people who are living in the Gaeltacht, a problem which we should deal with, whether it existed in the slums of Dublin or in the Gaeltacht. There is the human problem, the problem that is associated with the bigger and wider problem of unemployment generally. And then there is the language problem. I take it that this Commission was set up mainly to deal with the language problem and to consider the saving of the language in the Gaeltacht, the Irish-speaking parts of Ireland, and that the rest of it—the social problem—was intended to be considered as part of or incidental to that. Very well. What are we going to do in order to save the language? It is quite clear that we must prevent the present inroad of English in the Gaeltacht areas. That is quite clear. How can we do it? We can only do it by making it possible for the people there to have all conversation with regard to the requirements of their daily life conducted in Irish. There should be no English-speaking teachers in the schools in the Gaeltacht.

I have not at the moment the figures as to the number of schools in the really Irish-speaking districts in which there are teachers who do not know Irish. You have pensioned off other people, and if we have to make a national sacrifice in order to remove the English language from these centres of Anglicisation we should do it, no matter what the cost might be. We should have no officials of any kind in that area who do not talk Irish. You say that it is hard to get them, but you can get them if you go about it systematically. You can train them. I do not know if the Minister for Education could tell us, for instance, whether we have got any purely Irish training college, a training college where those who come in are native Irish speakers, where they speak Irish during the whole time of their training, where they are taught through Irish all the subjects that they will have to teach afterwards. I know that people who have learned Irish are being taught how to teach some subjects through [1032] Irish, but that will not do; that is not good enough for the Gaeltacht. There is not enough seriousness or enough readiness to sacrifice shown in methods of that kind for the preservation of the language in the Gaeltacht areas. So far as education in the Gaeltacht is concerned it is principally a question of primary and technical education. I am inclined to agree with the Minister for Local Government in that matter, that it is a question of primary and technical education that is principally involved. How are we to deal with it? I at any rate have indicated what I think should be the way in which we should deal with the question; that is, by keeping Irish, in these areas anyhow, alive by shutting up the ordinary avenues by which English comes to be the spoken, everyday language of the people in these areas. Do it with a full recognition of the fact that that means expense and that that means sacrifices, but do it, or else do not pretend that you mean to save the Gaeltacht.

As to the human problem: This is a congested area. There are two ways of dealing with areas of that kind. Either you have to take the people away out of them or give industries to the people that will enable them to live there. Perhaps a combination of the two might be possible in these areas. It would probably be possible to take out a large number of them from the uneconomic holdings in which they are and plant them somewhere in the neighbourhood. As far as taking them up to Meath or having a colony near Dublin the only thing we have to say about that is that if it can be done it will not be done so much from the Irish language point of view, from the point of view of saving the Gaeltacht, but because, as somebody else has remarked, it is better to have them there than to have them in Boston. Therefore, as far as establishing colonies at such a distance from the Gaeltacht is concerned, that is no system as far as the language is concerned. It is obviously very much better, if you have to plant Irish speakers, that you should plant them so that they will be extending the Gaeltacht, because ultimately we will be able to judge to what extent the Irish language is becoming the spoken language [1033] of the country by comparing this map with a map drawn up in ten or fifteen years' time. That is how we will judge whether or not we are making progress. It would be better if you could take them out and establish colonies on the verge of the yellow portion on the map that indicates the leath-Ghaeltacht.

As I said, we have either to take the people out of the Gaeltacht or give them industries and the means to live within it, and both of these methods are not necessarily exclusive. It is possible that it would not be feasible to take them all out and plant them, even in areas where they would be most effective, and that is in the breach-Ghaeltacht, or on the fringe of the Gaeltacht. It is possible that we cannot do it, but I am certain that if it were taken up with a will you could find a large number of areas where that could be done. Again, I say it would be costly, but you have to face it, or say to yourselves that you do not want to succeed. On the other hand, we could bring the means of livelihood to those that are within those areas. We must not despise any methods by which we would be able to give further means of support to those who are in those areas. If those areas are uneconomic from the purely agricultural point of view, let the people get part-work in other directions.

If we were to take as our national policy, and as the policy of the Executive, that we were to make this country self-supporting, as far as possible, with respect to the ordinary things that we use every day, if we were to say that we want to feed, clothe and shelter ourselves with materials produced as far as possible in this island, then certainly it would be possible to start a scheme of industrialisation, if you like, in the Gaeltacht. Of course the Minister for Industry and Commerce will say that such a scheme would be uneconomic, that these are not the proper centres; that if you want to start a boot factory, for instance, you must not start it in the Gaeltacht, where you have no transport, and so on. I hold that when we are judging economic values we ought to judge them with respect to the ultimate criterion, which is, whether they are going to [1034] enable a greater number of human beings to live in comfort in this island or not, and that we should not take them on their value in exchange with foreign countries. We have to take them as if this country were separated from the rest of the world, and ask ourselves how we could support in comfort the greatest number of human beings. If we are to provide clothes and boots, and all the other things that are necessaries of life in this island, we could start by giving a chance to the Gaeltacht with regard to providing some of these necessaries. You may say that in Dublin you would have a better centre, better rail transport. What would it come to in the end? It would ultimately mean, leaving out the money values, that we might have to work a little longer, and that if we did not use the most modern methods and the best equipment it would be uneconomic in these centres. That is what it would amount to.

We will have to face this fact, that sacrifices will have to be made if we are going to do this, and if in the end we are not going to waste our time and discover, as the Minister for Finance discovered in other directions, that we were fools all the time, that the Republic—freedom—was altogether a foolish ideal and that the British Empire of Queen Elizabeth or Queen Anne was as dead as both of them. I suppose the Minister will discover very soon that Anglo-Irish is a much superior language, that we have a special brand of English of our own, that it is purely distinctive, that the names of Yeats and all the rest of them have become world-names, and that it is a foolish thing to bother about the question of Irish. We are at the crossroads, and we have to make up our minds what we want, and whether we do want to save Irish. If we want to save Irish we will have to make sacrifices. If we do this, those of us who believe that it should be done will have to bind ourselves together, whether we are on these benches or on the benches opposite, because if not the forces of reaction are going to overtake us, until we will all in a short time be chanting hymns of praise of Anglo-Irish.

I am inclined to agree with the Minister for Local Government on the [1035] question of the machinery. The two speeches, although they were by no means sympathetic, from the point of view from which I look at it and with the objects we have in mind, that were not mere plausibilities were the speeches that we heard from the Minister for Agriculture and from the Minister for Local Government. The speech of the Minister for Agriculture was destructive. There is one thing, anyhow, that I can say, and it is that if we were setting up an Irish Development Commission, the Minister would be a splendid Devil's Advocate to have on the board. The Minister for Local Government mentioned the machinery. What do we say about the machinery? I say clearly that the machinery that the Executive proposes to set up for carrying out this—and I am not satisfied that it will—is the worst possible for doing it, and that is to put it under the Department which, it will be generally conceded, has been the most inefficient of all Departments—the Department of Fisheries. It will not carry the slightest bit of respect.

There is a suggestion in this Report in connection with a Commission, and that suggestion at least had this wisdom in it, that it proposed that that Commission should be answerable directly to the President. There is a value in that, because all the Departments of the Government impinge in one way or another, and their activities enter into the Gaeltacht. There, if you want to have proper co-ordination the one person that I can see in the Executive to co-ordinate all these is the President. It would be right, seeing that it would be an important Department, if the President could not attend to it in detail—and probably he could not, because of other activities of his office— that there should be a special Secretary, even if you had to make a statutory appointment for him, to deal with the Gaeltacht in itself. You should not tack anything else on to it, whether Fisheries, Land Commission, or anything else. You should give it a special, distinct place. Have a Secretary for the Gaeltacht; give him a definite Development Commission, a special Gaeltacht Commission that would look after life in the Gaeltacht, and give it [1036] money for activities of its own, activities that would be sanctioned by the President and would therefore, I presume, have to run to a certain extent the gamut of discussion in the Executive Council. Give them a sum of money which will enable them to take the initiative in development and then, through the President, wherever the activities impinge upon the activities of other Departments, they can be coordinated. I understand that there are a number of other speakers to follow, and it is much better that we should hear, in this matter, from those who are living in the Gaeltacht. I say that this resolution of Deputy Fahy is justified on the grounds that there is no clear indication here of a definite policy which will show that the Executive have really made up their minds to save the Gaeltacht.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE:  Before the Minister for Education replies, I would like to remind Deputies that Deputy Fahy should be allowed a reasonable time to reply, if this debate is to conclude at 2 o'clock.

MINISTER for EDUCATION (Professor O'Sullivan):  I think the intention was that the debate should be finished to-day, and that forty-five minutes should be allowed to this side, and on that calculation I have about eighteen. It is quite characteristic of the Deputy who has just sat down, and of his grip of realities, that, speaking after the arrangement made yesterday, he should say that several members on his side still wanted to speak, especially those from the Gaeltacht, and eighteen minutes was to be given to those on that side of the House.

A DEPUTY:  Whose fault was that?

Professor O'SULLIVAN:  There is one thing that I am in agreement with Deputy de Valera in and that is when he said that their whole policy and attitude and declaration are quite clear from the motion. I confess the motion is quite as clear to me now as it was before the Deputy spoke. I doubt whether he has added anything to make it clear except in one or two points, with which I will deal, concerning my own Department. He was asked by the Minister for Local Government to show [1037] precisely where their policy differs from the policy of the Government. They were challenged on that again and again, but it has not been done. One very definite suggestion was made that possibly if we had acted differently the day before yesterday in a certain matter the Gaeltacht might be saved. I hope anything I say will not be looked upon as an apology for the Minister for Finance on this matter of the language. I would be very sorry indeed to apologise to any Party for anything the Minister for Finance has done in that way. I think he is the greatest asset on the part of the language so far as any individual man is concerned that we have in this country. Therefore, I am not apologising for him in any way.

Mr. O'KELLY:  Do you apologise for your own want of knowledge of the language?

Professor O'SULLIVAN:  The candidate put forward for the position of Leas-Cheann Comhairle by the Fianna Fáil Party was a very poor service to the language, and if that was evidence of their seriousness with regard to the language, I have nothing more to say upon that particular matter. If you look at the debate as a whole, what does it come to? Money must be spent. If we ask how and with what national and social results, we are accused of being cheeseparing. I look at the White Paper.

Let anybody open and examine it, and ask himself if there is any evidence that it was questions of finance or of expenditure that prevented the Government from adopting the actual wording of the recommendations in this Report. If there was any reasonable return from the national point of view, as well as from any other point of view, the Government was quite ready to go on with it. More money and a specific sum. Anybody must know that if the Government wanted to get out of it cheaply the easiest thing would be to give a specific sum to the Gaeltacht, even purely from the standpoint of national finance. The Gaeltacht would do much worse out of an arrangement of that kind than out of the policy suggested by the Government. We are [1038] told that the White Paper is not in accord with the sentiments expressed in the Commission's Report or in consonance with the spirit of those who drafted it. There is no evidence whatsoever, and no examination of the White Paper would show that there is a tittle of foundation for that particular charge, nor for the further charge that the White Paper was drawn up simply to justify action already taken by the Government.

Apparently it is a crime that while the Commission was sitting the Government should have been acting and putting some of the recommendations into effect. The Government has tried, and has succeeded—and I suggest that no Deputy opposite has tried to do it— to see this problem as a whole, and to see it as a whole is essential to its solution. The Government are fully aware of the vital character of the problem. They are also aware of the difficulties in the way, but if they are aware of the difficulties they are not ignoring them, but are trying to surmount them, and trying to get the best method of surmounting them. There were plenty of opportunities for Deputies to examine the two reports side by side to show where, in essentials, the proposals of the Government were inferior so far as practical results are concerned to the report of the Gaeltacht Commission, which is so highly lauded by Deputies opposite. As everybody knows, no such attempt has been made. It is very poor information to us to hear from the mover of this motion that certain sections were rejected, others accepted with reservation, and then not tell us what the Deputy's own attitude was towards several of these matters.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE:  resumed the Chair.

Professor O'SULLIVAN:  There are many things I would like to go into but, unfortunately, time is short. We are accused of wanting an immediate return for money spent. Where is the slightest evidence of that in this White Paper from beginning to end? That was the charge made by Deputy Fahy and Deputy Clery. Drainage was mentioned as if that was one of the things from which we [1039] wanted an immediate return. Anyone who knows the A.B.C. of the Drainage Acts knows the contrary is the case. We not only do not want an immediate return, but in the case of a large portion of the money we want no return at all—it is a free grant—and so far as the rest is concerned, we are quite satisfied if there is a return in thirty-five years. That is an example of the loose talk that has gone on with regard to this Commission. Industries have been spoken of. The lace industry, we are told, can be revived if a central depot is set up. Anybody who knows anything of modern conditions knows that the failure of the lace industry here and elsewhere is due to very much more serious causes: that, in fact, lace is not worn nowadays as is was before, and that the big lace industries on the Continent are also failing. In Belgium and other centres the lace industry is practically at an end.

Coming to my own Department, I should be very sorry if anything that I say would be looked upon as an apology to the Party opposite, especially to them, for what the Government has done for the Irish language and what my Department has done for Irish. I wish the Party opposite had done one-tenth of it. The revival of Irish, as everybody knows, is in the forefront of our educational programme. We recognise the vital necessity of keeping it alive, especially in the Gaeltacht. I have here the proposals of the Commission and the proposals of the Government set down one under another. Have Deputies opposite made any effort to show, precisely, where our educational policy falls short? It is characteristic of the mover of the motion—I am not speaking now of the last Deputy who spoke; I am speaking of the mover of the motion—that as regards what I might call the central, in some respects almost the pivotal, recommendation, No. 5, he had nothing whatever to say except that we rejected it. He did not indicate his own attitude of whether we were right or wrong in the rejection. It is quite true that Deputy de Valera, who has just sat down, came definitely and clearly upon that point. His idea was that we were to dismiss [1040] and pension off, apparently immediately, or almost immediately, teachers in the Gaeltacht, whatever their associations with the Gaeltacht were, whatever their contract with the managers were, and whatever the rights of the teachers and the managers were. That is at least definite. Will it serve the Irish language in the Gaeltacht? Will it serve the revival of the language through the country? That is a point apparently that, with his usual neglect of the hard realities of the situation, the Deputy would like to ignore. The mover of the resolution did not, as I say, commit himself to it, but Deputy de Valera's view is that we should pension off straight away the teachers in the Gaeltacht, independent, apparently, of certain rights of various people, and also as to whether we are at the moment capable of supplying their places with teachers.

The Deputy ought to know that he cannot make a good teacher in a year or a couple of years. We have taken steps to see that in a reasonable time, and as quick as the circumstances of the case demand, suitable teachers will be provided. We have dealt with the Preparatory Colleges and set them up. The Minister for Finance never boggled at any expenditure so far as these were concerned. That is an indication of his whole attitude towards this question of the revival. So far as the other colleges are concerned, the mover of the motion asked me a question: did I believe that even in ten years they would be fully Irish-speaking? I certainly do. I know that in the last couple of years even they have made considerable advances in that direction in the training colleges—not all to the same extent, but in all of them they have made considerable advances and, in some, very considerable advances in the direction indicated by the Deputy. I say it is purely ignoring——

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE:  The mover of the motion ought to have fifteen minutes to reply.

Professor O'SULLIVAN:  I am not responsible. Deputy de Valera took half an hour, but I will give way to the Deputy.

[1041]Mr. AIKEN:  He took two minutes less than the Minister for Local Government.

Professor O'SULLIVAN:  We were to get 45 minutes.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE:  The Minister can take until 1.45 p.m.

SEOSAMH O MONGAIN:  An mbéidh cead ag aon Teachta eile labhairt?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE:  Do réir mar tá sé socruighthe, ní bhéidh cead ag aon Teachta labhairt acht an Teachta Proinnsias O Fathaigh.

SEOSAMH O MONGAIN:  Ní thógfaidh mise níos mo na dhá nóiméad.

Professor O'SULLIVAN:  Deputy Kilroy took four minutes.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE:  The situation is that Deputy Fahy, on the strictest mathematical calculation, is entitled to fourteen minutes. I shall, therefore, hear Deputy Mongan for one minute.

SEOSAMH O MONGAIN:  Tá mise sásta leis an rud adubhairt An tAire, Risteárd O Maolchatha, go bhfuil an Rialtas ag dul rud éicint do dhéanamh do'n Ghaeltacht—go mór mór na tithe. Anois, fáoi'n teangain, tá sean-fhocal againn—“Taisbeánann an madadh múineadh an teallaigh.” Bhal, seo é teallach an tSaorstáit agus ma's é sin an múineadh atá an teallach so a theasbáint—gan focal Gaedhilge do labhairt—is olc e—go mór Teachtaí ar nós Eamon de Valéra atá ag caint an oiread sin ar Ghaedhilg i mBeurla agus Gaedhilg mhaith aige féin. Nách olc an teasbántas sin ag Teachta Eamon de Valéra do mhuinntir Con na Mara. Ba mhaith liom go gcuirfí teorann leis an Ghaeltacht agus tá bród orm go bhfuil An Teachta Proinnsias O Fathaigh liom annsin.

Mr. MULLINS:  I wish to record my protest against the indecent haste with which this debate has been rushed through the Dáil—eight hours in six years for the most vital problem of the whole nation.

Mr. FAHY:  It would be difficult for me in 14 minutes to reply to all the criticisms that have been put up to the [1042] statement I have made. The Minister for Fisheries spoke of the danger of patting the Gaels on the back and the amount of sentiment that was talked. I have been accused by others of using no Robert Emmet stunts in this. I had to keep to hard facts. I do not think I voiced either sentiment or sentimentality. I certainly did not pat the Gaels on the back, and I suggested that the loss of certain industries was due, partly to dishonesty and partly to want of putting their backs into the work to be done. There was nothing complimentary about that. The same Minister also dwelt at length on my reference to trawlers. I said that possibly a few trawlers might be wanted in addition to the standard boats for the inshore fishing. Irish cannot be saved from Dublin out—I think that has been definitely settled now—though enthusiasm in Dublin and the Gaeltacht is very necessary, I will admit, in order to restore a proper atmosphere there. If the living springs are allowed to dry we cannot have any irrigation. You cannot Gaelicise the country from Dublin. As regards the sections of the Gaeltacht Report, we are accused of not having read them and digested them. I have read the White Paper and the Report many times, and referred to every single item in them. I still maintain that there were adopted, 15; avoided, 15, and that there are being considered, 14 of the recommendations; what the consideration will come to I do not know; that there were 10 rejected and 9 referred to the Technical Education Commission. I hope they will be carried out. We are told that they are quite safe in the hands of that Commission. I hope it is true.

There are only 2,000 whole-time fishermen. I wonder if the present policy is continued how many will be there in another five years' time. At any rate, the fish is there, while fish is being sent from Grimsby to Cork. It should be possible to organise the fishing industry to supply our own needs even in Cork City, and not to have fish coming from Grimsby. It was suggested by the same Minister that the part-time fishermen should be helped— I quite agree—and that their sons might be educated to be whole-time fishermen. Where is the education to [1043] come from under this White Paper? Technical schools required for training them are not to be set up, as far as I understand. I do not see where the training is to come from to make whole-time fishermen of them. The Minister for Fisheries states that the Government have faced up to the problem, and the Minister for Agriculture states that the Government have not faced up to the problem.

I do not know who is to settle the differences between them or which section is to decide the policy of the Government in this matter. The Minister for Finance says that the preservation of the Gaeltacht is necessary, that economic remedies are not enough. We must educate the young Gaedhealgóir. We must educate public opinion. I referred to the setting up of a school in Dublin—it is rejected in the White Paper—for training in domestic economy and such things, and the Minister suggests we should have nursery governesses taught here. It is rejected, as far as I can see, in the White Paper.

Mr. BLYTHE:  The recommendation is not rejected in the White Paper.

Mr. FAHY:  I do not see that it is going to be carried out.

Mr. BLYTHE:  That is another matter.

Mr. FAHY:  I have not time to go into the report item by item. I referred to every item when speaking before. There is point in the Minister's suggestion, because owing to the snobbery and the social system that exists in this country, domestic service is looked down upon. and many servants, if trained, would not remain in their posts perhaps. It is better to change the title to suit the snobs. I am not suggesting that that is the motive that actuated the Minister for Finance. He was quite sincere in that suggestion. A lot is being done to help Irish by education. I will admit that the programme adopted by the first Republican Dáil is largely being carried out, both in primary and secondary education. However, I say the base and summit are in danger. It [1044] must be based on the Gaeltacht. The summit is the university and technical education. I do not quite understand the question put by the Minister for Local Government regarding Galway University College. I approve of the steps taken by the Government to Gaelicise Galway College. I do not know how far they will go, now they have the money, in making it perfectly Gaelic. The Minister for Lands and Agriculture has not apparently very much hope for industries or anything else there, but I would suggest to him that agriculture alone cannot solve the problem in the Gaeltacht any more than it has done anywhere else. All countries have recognised that you must combine industry with agriculture if you want a nation to be economically sound. There is room in the Gaeltacht for industries. In my statement, I referred to the work done with regard to poultry and pig-rearing in the Gaeltacht. It is good work, but not enough. You will want those industries, small matters, year by year. Deputy Law says we should not neglect small things. Quite so. It is possible that all these small things would save the Gaeltacht in 50 years economically. I do not believe they would, but they might. But even if they did, there would be no Irish language there then. It would be too slow. You have got to solve the Gaeltacht problem in 20 years, and, if possible, 10. Slow methods would not solve it under 50 years, if at all.

As regards industries, I suggested definite concrete industries. Others were also suggested. The marble industry could be started in Galway and the products exported to South America with good profit. There were many other industries referred to which I cannot go into now. You could get sites for factories in old mills which are disused, or in workhouses. You could get power from the Shannon scheme. I presume that is what it is for. You can get transport with Ford lorries. As to technical skill, it is absolutely necessary that colleges for technical instruction through Irish solely be set up. I gave a definite scheme for them, which the Minister for Education did not deal with. I [1045] spoke of continuation schemes, and he did not answer that either. I referred to a definite scheme. He spent ten of his sixteen minutes referring to the pensioning of teachers from these districts, without any reference to the agricultural college in Athenry or, possibly, Clifden, where a college in domestic economy might be set up. I said woollens and homespuns could be produced in the Gaeltacht. The Minister for Agriculture said you would be going into competition there with Cork.

Whatever Committee is set up might look at one particular item, namely, horse blanketing—lining for horse-collars, and so on—which comes from Manchester in large quantities here. I see no reason why such an industry could not be established. I have figures to prove that this material could be manufactured with a gross profit of 20 per cent. and a net profit of ten. That might be cutting it very fine, but it would be worth trying. Similarly, with regard to the manufacture of underwear of various kinds, or women's wear. There is a lot of talk of the linen industry in Belfast. Belfast had always this other industry— using Lancashire cotton to make up these garments. They have a lot of it still. The Minister for Local Government referred to the length of time I spoke on the social and other problems of the Gaeltacht. I used, I think, only two sentences in referring to the historic or other problems of the Gaeltacht. I do not believe the economic solution is in that White Paper, and I pointed out why. I may be misleading my own intelligence, as the Minister suggests. He referred to me as speaking as a big Gaelic Leaguer, or as being Secretary of the Gaelic League. I am sorry if it offends him that I am Secretary of the Gaelic League, but it is open to anyone to become a member and put me out of the post. I do not pose as a big Gaelic Leaguer, as a great spokesman for the Irish language. I am only one trying to do my best for it. I have not boasted about it, and I have not sought publicity. It seems to be a crime against me that I am Secretary of the Gaelic League. It has been referred to several times—that I was a salaried official of the Gaelic League. If I get an honorarium, not [1046] running into three figures, for being Secretary of the Gaelic League, it is not, I hope, a crime.

The plans I put up were not criticised by the Deputies opposite. They referred to small points, personal ones mostly. I hold that you must have a definite sum and a definite method of administering that sum. The machinery was nebulous. Other Deputies were in doubt about it, as I was. Deputy Hugh Law was in doubt about it as much as I was We have achieved that much; we have got that cleared up. Special money, we were told, would be given to the Gaeltacht. We have seen in the Budget how tight money is. Where is the special money to come from that is to be given to the Gaeltacht? If we take the Appropriation Accounts and so on, I do not see where the money is to come from without a Supplementary Vote. I do not want to limit the grant to the Gaeltacht to, say, £2,000,000. I wanted a fixed sum, so that the body administering it would not be tied too tightly by the Minister for Finance and would not have to account for each item; that they could apply for more if necessary. Unless that is done, you have not the machinery to work fast enough to save the Irish language. That is the interest I have in the Gaeltacht—to save the Irish language. The machinery set up will not be quick enough to do that. They are overburdened already if they do the business of lands and fisheries without having this thrust upon them, even if they get further assistance. I would prefer to have suggestions put up that we should combine and try to get machinery and a definite sum of money to save the Gaeltacht, to having a division on this motion, but as there seems to be no inclination to combine or co-operate, I am reluctantly compelled to put the motion.

Motion read.

Mr. ANTHONY:  You, a Chinn Comhairle, have read out the motion in Irish as it appears on the Order Paper. Perhaps, for the edification or enlightenment of those of us who do not understand Irish, you would read the motion in English. I should like to know what I am voting for.

[1047]Mr. CLERY:  Did the Deputy listen to the debate?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE:  When the question is being put, a translation of the motion in English will be read.

Question put.

Translation of motion read as follows:—

“That it is the opinion of the Dáil that the recommendations contained in the White Paper—entitled Statement [1048] of Government Policy on Recommendations of the (Gaeltacht) Commission—will not save the Gaeltacht, and that it is incumbent on the Government to prepare immediately a definite scheme embodying practical recommendations, and to allocate a definite sum of money for the putting into operation, without further delay, of such recommendations."

The Dáil divided: Tá, 60; Níl, 71.

Frank Aiken.
Denis Allen.
Richard Anthony.
Gerald Boland.
Patrick Boland.
Daniel Bourke.
Seán Brady.
Robert Briscoe.
Daniel Buckley.
Frank Carney.
Frank Carty.
Archie J. Cassidy.
Patrick Clancy.
Michael Clery.
James Colbert.
Hugh Colohan.
Eamon Cooney.
Dan Corkery.
Martin John Corry.
Fred. Hugh Crowley.
Tadhg Crowley.
Thomas Derrig.
Eamon de Valera.
Edward Doyle.
James Everett.
Frank Fahy.
Hugo Flinn.
Andrew Fogarty.
Seán French.
Patrick J. Gorry.
John Goulding.
Seán Hayes.
Samuel Holt.
Patrick Houlihan.
Stephen Jordan.
Michael Joseph Kennedy.
William R. Kent.
James Joseph Killane.
Mark Killilea.
Michael Kilroy.
Seán F. Lemass.
Patrick John Little.
Ben Maguire.
Thomas McEllistrim.
Seán MacEntee.
Daniel Morrissey.
Thomas Mullins.
Thomas J. O'Connell.
Patrick Joseph O'Dowd.
Seán T. O'Kelly.
William O'Leary.
Matthew O'Reilly.
Thomas O'Reilly.
Thomas P. Powell.
James Ryan.
Timothy Sheehy (Tipperary).
Patrick Smith.
John Tubridy.
Richard Walsh.
Francis C. Ward.

Níl

William P. Aird.
James Walter Beckett.
George Cecil Bennett.
Ernest Blythe.
Séamus A. Bourke.
Seán Brodrick.
John Joseph Byrne.
Edmund Carey.
James Coburn.
John James Cole.
Mrs. Margt. Collins-O'Driscoll.
Martin Conlan.
Michael P. Connolly.
Bryan Ricco Cooper.
William T. Cosgrave.
Sir James Craig.
John Daly.
Michael Davis.
James N. Dolan.
Peadar Seán Doyle.
Edmund John Duggan.
James Dwyer.
Barry M. Egan.
Osmond Thos. Grattan Esmonde. [1049]Martin Michael Nally.
John Thomas Nolan.
Richard O'Connell.
Bartholomew O'Connor.
Timothy Joseph O'Donovan.
John F. O'Hanlon.
Daniel O'Leary.
Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
John J. O'Reilly.
Gearoid O'Sullivan.
John Marcus O'Sullivan.
William Archer Redmond.
Desmond Fitzgerald.
James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
Denis J. Gorey.
Alexander Haslett.
John J. Hassett.
Michael R. Heffernan.
Michael Joseph Hennessy.
Thomas Hennessy.
John Hennigan.
Mark Henry.
Patrick Hogan (Galway).
Richard Holohan.
Michael Jordan.
Myles Keogh.
Hugh Alexander Law.
Finian Lynch.
Arthur Patrick Mathews.
Martin McDonogh.
Patrick McGilligan.
Joseph W. Mongan.
Richard Mulcahy.
James E. Murphy.
Joseph Xavier Murphy.
James Sproule Myles. [1050]Patrick Reynolds.
Martin Roddy.
Patrick W. Shaw.
Timothy Sheehy (West Cork).
William Edward Thrift.
Michael Tierney.
Daniel Vaughan.
John White.
Vincent Joseph White.
George Wolfe.
Jasper Travers Wolfe.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Allen and G. Boland. Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Duggan.

Motion declared lost.

Mr. GOREY:  I should like to mention that the Spring Show will be held on next Wednesday and Thursday. I think it would be taken as a great compliment to the farming community if we could arrange to assemble somewhat later than 3 o'clock on both these days. I would suggest 5 o'clock instead of 3 o'clock, if that would be acceptable.

Dr. HENNESSY:  If Deputy Gorey's proposition is acceptable, I would suggest that we should meet at 6 o'clock instead of 5 o'clock, because the best item of the Show is on between 5 and 6 o'clock—the jumping.

Mr. GOREY:  We do not want amusement. It is strictly a matter of business with us.

The PRESIDENT:  The matter can only be fixed by agreement now.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE:  I am not sure that it can be fixed at all now.

The PRESIDENT:  So far as I am concerned, I have no objection.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE:  The matter should strictly have been raised before 2 o'clock. As all the leaders of the Parties are present, I will take general agreement on the question, if I can get it, but I will take nothing else.

Mr. DE VALERA:  We have no objection.

Ordered: That the Dáil meet at 5 o'clock on Wednesday.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE:  The hour of meeting on Thursday can be fixed at Wednesday's meeting.

The Dáil adjourned at 2.25 p.m. until Wednesday at 5 p.m.

TADHG CROWLEY:  asked the Minister for Fisheries whether the estate of the late Miss Croker at Grange, County Limerick, has been acquired by the Land Commission; if so, what portion it is intended to allot towards the enlargement of uneconomic holdings in the district; and when he hopes to be in a position to make such allotment.

PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to MINISTER for FISHERIES (Mr. Roddy):  Proceedings have been instituted under the provisions of the Land Act, 1923, for the acquisition of the following lands:—

a. r. p.
Skool 265 0 13
Skoolhill 230 3 20
Ballycullane 3 20
Grange 119 3 23

These lands were published in a Provisional List of lands which, if not excluded in consequence of a valid objection, will become vested in the Land Commission on the Appointed Day. Objections to the acquisition of part of these lands by the Land Commission have been lodged by the owners and are at present pending.