University College, Galway, Bill, 1929—First Stage.
Electricity (Finance) Bill, 1929—First Stage.
Civil Service (Transferred Officers) Compensation Bill, 1929—First Stage.
Business of Dáil.
Railways (Amendment) Bill, 1929—Final Stages.
Totalisator Bill, 1929—Final Stages.
Copyright (Preservation) Bill, 1929—Final Stages.
Estimates for Public Services.
In Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 60—Unemployment Insurance.
In Committee on Finance. - Vote 61—Industrial and Commercial Property Registration Office.
In Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 67—League of Nations.
In Committee on Finance. - Deputy's Complaint.
In Committee on Finance. - Vote 1—Governor-General's Establishment.
In Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 2—Oireachtas.
In Committee on Finance. - Late Sitting.
 Do chuaidh an Ceann Comhairle i gceannas ar 10.30 a.m.
Leave given to introduce a Bill “entitled an Act to make provision for increasing the annual grant payable to University College, Galway, and for securing that persons appointed to offices and situations in that College shall be competent to discharge their duties through the medium of the Irish language.”— (Minister for Finance.)
Bill read a First Time. Second Stage ordered for Wednesday, 3rd July.
Leave given to introduce a Bill “entitled an Act to amend subsections (4) and (5) of Section 11 of the Shannon Electricity Act, 1925, and Sections 12 and 15 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1927.”— (Minister for Finance.)
Bill read a First Time. Second Stage ordered for Wednesday, 3rd July.
Leave given to introduce a Bill “entitled an Act to confirm a certain Agreement interpreting and supplementing Article 10 of the Treaty of 1921 and in pursuance of that Agreement to make provision for the final determination in accordance therewith of all claims for compensation under the said Article 10 heretofore made or hereafter to be made by persons (other than members of a  police force) claiming to have been transferred by virtue of any transfer of services from the service of the British Government to the service of the late Provisional Government of Ireland or of the Government of Saorstát Eireann and for other matters incidental to such final determination or in connection therewith.”—(Minister for Finance.)
Bill read a First Time. Second Stage ordered for Thursday, 4th July, 1929.
Ordered: That the consideration of the Estimates for Public Services be not interrupted at 12 noon for the taking of Private Deputies' business.
Mr. Blythe: I move:—
That leave be given to introduce the following Additional Estimate for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, namely:—Vote No. 69 (Advances to Compensation Funds under the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1927).
Intimation has already been given to the House that this Estimate will be required. The amount will be £50,400.
Leave granted. Estimate to be taken on Friday, 5th July.
Fourth and Fifth Stages agreed to.
Bill ordered to be sent to the Seanad.
Fourth and Fifth Stages agreed to.
Bill ordered to be sent to the Seanad.
Fourth and Fifth Stages agreed to.
Bill ordered to be sent to the Seanad.
 The Dáil, according to Order, resumed consideration in Committee on Finance of the Estimates for Public Services for the year ending 31st March, 1930.
Mr. Blythe: I move:—
Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £146,499 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, 1930, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí i dtaobh Arachais Díomhaointis agus Malartán Fostuíochta, maraon le síntiúisí do Chiste an Díomhaointis.
That a sum not exceeding £146,499 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, 1930, for Salaries and Expenses in connection with Unemployment Insurance and Employment Exchanges, including contributions to the Unemployment Fund.
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Dolan): There is nothing new in any of the figures that appear under the different headings in this Estimate. The only sub-head that calls for any particular mention would be Sub-head G—Contributions to Unemployment Fund—in which there is an increase of £5,000. This is somewhat reduced by the consequent increase in the appropriations-in-aid. It is a rather good indication, because the amount of this contribution is calculated on the general contributions made by employer and employees, so that it shows there is more employment in the country when this amount goes up. There is nothing else that calls for special mention. The sums shown are for the general administration of the Act, and during the  year there has been very little trouble in its administration. The officials of the Department have administered it as equitably as is possible in all the circumstances.
Mr. Lemass: I wonder would it be in order to initiate on this Estimate a discussion with reference to the action which the Government are taking, or propose to take, to decrease the volume of unemployment in the country. There are, as the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, two sub-heads the size of which is determined by the number of persons in insurable occupations. If the number of persons in insurable occupations increases, the contributions which the Government will have to make under Sub-head G will be increased, and the appropriation-in-aid can be increased as well, whereas, if the Government continue their present policy of inactivity in relation to unemployment, it is likely that the number of persons in insurable occupations will be decreased, and that, consequently, these sub-heads will show a variation accordingly.
An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy wants to initiate a debate on unemployment, but that cannot be done on this particular Estimate, which is for the money required to administer the Unemployment Insurance Acts, the employment exchanges, etc. It would not be proper to have a debate on the Government's policy with regard to unemployment on this particular Estimate. That matter must be debated either on the Estimate for the Office of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, or on an amendment which is already on the Paper in the name of Deputy O'Connell to Vote 3, under which the Deputy intends to raise certain matters with regard to the Government's attitude towards unemployment, but not, I think, very widely. Since that amendment is already on the Paper, the Deputy will have to wait until that comes up.
Mr. Lemass: I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would inform us as to the present position  with relation to the making of a reciprocal arrangement with the Government of Northern Ireland in the matter of unemployment insurance.
An Ceann Comhairle: That was raised already on the Estimate for the Minister for External Affairs, and was actually dealt with by the Minister on that Estimate. Deputy Coburn, I think, and other Deputies raised it. The Deputy may remember that I was a little surprised to hear unemployment insurance mentioned on the Estimate for the Department of External Affairs, but it transpired that it was in fact a question for the Minister for External Affairs.
Mr. Lemass: I take it it would not be in order to raise the matter on this Vote?
An Ceann Comhairle: I do not think so.
Mr. Lemass: To get down then to the matter of the administration of the Vote, the Parliamentary Secretary made reference to the fact that the increase shown under Sub-head G indicates an anticipated increase in the number of persons in insurable occupations in the course of the year. I am very glad to hear that, because I must say that my own interpretation as to an increase coincides with his. Last year a decrease in the sub-head was shown, and when I asked if that was an indication that the Government anticipated a smaller number of persons in insurable occupations during the year I was informed it was quite the contrary and that a decrease in the sub-head indicated an increase in the number of persons in employment. In fact, Deputy Byrne said he was definitely assured by the officials of the Department that that was the significance of the decrease then shown. If a decrease in the sub-head indicated an increase in the volume of employment last year, and an increase has the same significance this year, then the figures must be fixed purely by chance. My own interpretation of the Acts, and it is the common sense interpretation, is that  an increase here indicates an increase in the number of persons in insurable occupations, because the contribution which the Government have to make to the unemployment fund is determined by the revenue from the sale of stamps.
I should like to raise the question of the appropriations-in-aid. The Government are entitled to take a sum equal to one-eighth of the revenue fund to meet the expenses of administering the Acts. This year, as last year, they obviously propose to take the full amount to which they are entitled, but the expenses of administration shown in this particular Vote are about £10,000 less than the amount they propose to take as appropriations-in-aid. The Minister for Industry and Commerce explained last year that that was due to the fact that certain work was done by officials of his own Department in respect to the administration of these Acts not shown in this Vote. I think it would be very desirable to have included in the Estimate for Unemployment Insurance all the expenditure incurred by the Government in the administration of Unemployment Insurance. It is unsatisfactory to have a certain amount shown here which is obviously less than the Government anticipated to spend and to know that certain others items should be included, without having any definite indication as to what these items are, or what proportion of the Vote for the Department of the Minister for Industry and Commerce should be included. It may be that the Government are merely anxious to get as much money as they can, and to take the statutory maximum from the fund for administration purposes, but they are not entitled to do that unless the cost of administering the Acts is equal to or exceeds the statutory maximum they are entitled to take.
If the cost is equal to or exceeds the amount shown as appropriation-in-aid then it should be shown in one or other of the sub-heads. Any other arrangement is, I think, most unsatisfactory and does not enable  the Dáil to realise fully the cost of administering those Acts. I think it is desirable that the Dáil should know exactly the relationship which the cost of administration bears to the benefits conferred. I am not sure if the Government have examined the question of the suitability of these Acts to the conditions prevailing in this country. They were not originally passed with any consideration of the particular circumstances prevailing in the Irish Free State at all. They were passed for the purpose of dealing with an abnormal situation in a highly industrialised country such as Britain. Whether they can be improved to meet the different situation which exists here is a matter which I think should be examined. I do not know whether the Government have examined, or propose to examine it, or, having examined it, have found that the Acts could not be improved. I am, of course, aware that a number of Unemployment Insurance Acts have been passed here, some of them making minor alterations in the original Act, but none of them altering the scheme in any fundamental way. They were passed merely to affect the application of the scheme in times of particular stress. If the Government are contemplating any change in the Unemployment Insurance Acts we would be glad to be informed as to what line they contemplate taking in future. It would be well if Deputies were put in a position to see clearly whether the cost of administering the present Acts is excessive in relation to the benefits conferred. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with that matter when concluding the debate.
Mr. Morrissey: There are just a few small points I would like to make. I think that we might have had a more ample statement from the Parliamentary Secretary than he gave us when introducing this Estimate. I was expecting to hear from him something in regard to the new scheme of remuneration for branch managers and the general  working of the branch employment exchanges. I take it that the reduction in Sub-head A is due to the very large reductions which were made during the year in the salaries and wages of branch managers. In some cases reductions to the extent of fifty per cent. have taken place. I should like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary whether he is satisfied that those exchanges are working as smoothly and as well under the new as they were under the old scheme. I think that he might also have given us some idea of the number of cases brought before the Courts of Referees, and ultimately before the umpire during the year and whether the Department is satisfied that the Courts of Referees, as at present constituted, and the machinery under which they work are suitable. Personally I am very doubtful of that because if an unemployed person wishes to appeal against the decision of an insurance officer to a court of referees, in many cases that court is twenty, thirty, or even fifty miles from where the man lives and, if he desires to appear before the court in support of his appeal, he must travel at his own expense which, of course, makes it almost impossible for nearly all of those who desire to attend to go there because we know that a man who is unemployed for some time and who is appealing his case will not have the money to pay the expenses involved.
I would be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would also give some information in regard to Sub-head H. “Payment to Associations— £350,” and if he would tell us what these associations are, what work they perform, and why the State should make a contribution of £350. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would also explain, in view of what I have just said, how the sum of £100, which has been advanced to work-people for fares, is paid out, on what basis it is allowed, and under what circumstances. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary should have explained, and I hope he will explain, the reasons for the Department taking the steps which  they did take during the last twelve months to make such a very drastic change with regard to payments to branch managers. Some of these men had their salaries reduced, as I have already pointed out, by as much as fifty per cent., according to my information. I think that that is far too drastic. There may have been a case for some rearrangement. I know that in the case of some of the branch managers who were employed by the present Government, although they had much more work to do than those who were employed under the British, their salaries and wages were much less. In that way there may have been a case for the rearrangement of salaries and wages, but I do not think that any case could be made for drastic reductions of from thirty to fifty per cent. in many cases. Under these circumstances I think that the Parliamentary Secretary should give the information I have asked for.
Mr. Briscoe: I would like to refer to the remarks made by the Parliamentary Secretary, in which he stated that according to the information which he has got from officials regarding the administration of the Acts they are working smoothly. That may be so, so far as the officials are concerned, but so far as insured persons who become unemployed are concerned, I do not think that the Acts are being administered to their satisfaction. It is from that point of view that I would put two or three points before the Parliamentary Secretary to see if some relief could not be given in cases of hardship arising under the administration of the Acts. A typical case with which I have had to deal is this: A man in an insurable occupation has a job here which he has held for five or six years or perhaps longer, but then he becomes unemployed, through no fault of his, and, not being of the type who wants to go immediately and draw unemployment benefit, he seeks employment elsewhere. He then gets work in England, but has to leave his family here, and he is employed across the water for a year or nine  months, when he again gets unemployed. Having exhausted every possible means of trying to get work he is forced to return home, where he proceeds to the Unemployment Exchange to draw benefit which has been accruing during the previous five years. He then discovers that he is debarred from drawing benefit because he has no contribution to his credit within the financial year. I contend that that situation arises solely because there is no arrangement in this country with the Six Counties or England to cover such cases. That is not the fault of the individual.
An Ceann Comhairle: Nor is it the fault of the Parliamentary Secretary. The Deputy cannot raise the question of reciprocal arrangement on this Vote. It was raised already on another Vote. What the Deputy is raising is a defect in legislation. He began by dealing with administration, but he is now dealing with legislation. I allowed him to proceed in order that I might see what point he was making. Clearly it is that point.
Mr. Briscoe: Very well. I will leave that point. The next matter to which I wish to refer concerns the administration itself. On several occasions it has happened that individuals employed in fairly large concerns, on presenting their claims for unemployment benefit, found that they were held up and delayed in getting benefit for a considerable time owing to the fact that some other individual of the same name was employed on the same premises. That is due to no fault of the individual concerned, but the Department delays a considerable time before giving that man benefit. I would urge upon the Parliamentary Secretary that the claims of people who are dependent on a week's wages, or on benefit when they are out of work, should be dealt with in a more expeditious manner. I do not say the officials in the Department are to blame. It is the system which is to blame. The claim has to be sent from one office to another, and it  takes several weeks to establish the identity of the person making the claim. Another point to which the Parliamentary Secretary might pay some attention is that some employers, although they have deducted the contributions from their employees, do not stamp their cards, with the result that when any of these employees becomes unemployed he is unable to get benefit. I had to deal with a few cases of that kind, and there appears to be a considerable amount of laxity on the part of the Department in following up employers and forcing them to stamp their cards. Several months elapse in some cases before they force the issue. The man's card is then finally stamped and he is paid benefit. He gets the arrears in one lump sum, whereas if he were paid his benefit from week to week, he might be able to keep his home going and be in a better frame of mind to seek employment elsewhere. I think that some steps should be taken to administer the matter on a more expeditious basis.
Deputy Lemass pointed out the position with regard to the Appropriations-in-Aid and the amount charged for administration purposes. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to elucidate the position as much as possible, because while it appears on the one hand, that the Department or the Government is entitled to recoup itself up to a certain percentage out of the fund for administration purposes, in fact the Government is making a profit on the transaction. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to give as much detailed information as he can on the points raised by Deputy Lemass in that respect.
Mr. H. Broderick: There are a few matters to which I would like to direct the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary. The first matter is that of the spending up of claims. Deputies generally may not be well aware of how people who are unemployed make claims. Generally persons who become unemployed are  paid off on Saturday. They cannot make their claims on Saturday, because the Labour Exchanges are closed. They have to wait until the following Monday. The unemployed person makes a claim at the local Labour Exchange on Monday, and it is then sent on to the Head Office. It will probably take three weeks to have the case investigated here in Dublin. The unemployed person is very lucky if the reply is received in a fortnight's time. If it is back in a fortnight's time he receives three days' unemployment benefit. He may be three weeks or a month away from work before receiving this benefit. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to see that the investigation of claims should be speeded up as much as possible. Another matter to which I wish to refer concerns continuation of unemployment. Take the case of persons employed in woollen mills or saw mills for several weeks. A slack period may come on occasionally, and some of these persons may be left off for a week. The same form has to be gone through in every case, and the person has to wait six days clear without getting anything. Probably he goes back to work the following week, so that he gets nothing for his period of unemployment. If the employer does not discharge him within six weeks that person never draws a halfpenny out of the Unemployment Fund. If he is working for six weeks, and if he is out again on the seventh week, he has to wait six clear days, and go through the same form again. I wonder if it would be possible for the Parliamentary Secretary to remedy that grave defect in the Act?
I also desire to draw attention to the position of a roadworker who may have a small holding of four or five acres. The majority of such people have pretty large families of young children. Some of their sons might be fifteen or sixteen years of age. The procedure is that when this roadworker becomes unemployed he lodges his claim, but he is told that he is not unemployed because he has a holding of land on  which he should be working if there is any work for him to do on it. The claim is disallowed, he appeals and the case comes before the Court of Referees. In a good many cases, the claims are passed by the Court of Referees, but on the other hand, if the man happens to have done any work on his holding, he gets nothing. Another matter to which I wish to refer has been dealt with to some extent by Deputy Briscoe. That is the question of non-compliance with the provisions of the Act by employers. A man may have been working with a particular employer for a number of years, but no stamps are put on his card. When that man becomes unemployed and proceeds to the Labour Exchange to lodge his claim he has no card to produce. He tells the officials at the Labour Exchange that he has been working for a particular employer, or a number of employers, as the case may be. The branch manager then takes up the matter with the employer and asks him to comply with the Act. He refuses and the unemployed man is deprived of unemployment benefit. The Act says that the unemployed man must then bring his employer into court. The employer must be brought into court by this unfortunate man, who may have a young family. He must sue the employer and compel him to stamp his card. That should not be the case. A certain number of weeks elapse before the Department will take up his case. If the employer insists on not stamping the cards the Department takes him into court and he is made pay up by the District Justice. When that is done the unemployed person is paid his benefit. I think the Parliamentary Secretary should try to remedy that matter, and that there should not be a delay of three or four weeks before action is taken against the employer. The unemployed people have not money to sue employers. The Parliamentary Secretary should have this matter remedied by the Department.
Mr. E. Doyle: A matter which I would like to bring before the Parliamentary Secretary has been referred  to by Deputy Broderick. That is the case of people working for county councils on roads, and who own small holdings of five or six acres. I had one case before me quite recently and I asked the Minister a question six weeks ago in reference to a man who had two or three children and who was formerly employed on the roads.
When he went to seek unemployment insurance his case was turned down. He was brought before the Court of Referees and had to travel a distance of about twenty-five miles. The Court of Referees upheld his claim and contended that he was entitled to unemployment insurance. Then he came before the umpire and his case was turned down. The man was working all his life time. His father owns the holding. As a matter of fact, this man is not entitled to receive unemployment insurance. I contend that condition of affairs is not alone unfair but unjust. A man with a wife and two or three children is denied even means of providing for himself and his family. I think that is a matter that the Parliamentary Secretary ought at least to consider seriously.
With reference to the case of branch managers, to which Deputy Morrissey referred, I have known the case of one particular branch manager, and when he took up this job a few years ago there were only a few hundred people on the insurance list. Now there are thousands. His work has been considerably increased, and his salary has been considerably decreased. I think that is not the manner in which people who have very responsible positions and through whose hands thousands of pounds go yearly, should be treated. I think people like that should have a decent salary, so that they can be relied on to give good service. I have no more to say on the matter, but I would be very glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would consider seriously the case I have made.
Mr. Anthony: I would like when the Parliamentary Secretary is replying, if he would inform us if any steps have been taken by our  Government to secure something in the nature of reciprocity as far as this unemployment scheme is concerned.
An Ceann Comhairle: This matter was raised on a previous Vote. It is not on the Parliamentary Secretary's Vote that it should be raised.
Mr. Anthony: I have only a few words to say with regard to what Deputy Doyle said with reference to the small holders and the disqualification that exists at the moment, which is all very provocative, particularly in view of the fact that these men have to pay. It is only justice to ask, as these men are compelled to contribute, and do not see the benefits they will get, that the Minister for Industry and Commerce should not allow the system to continue whereby deductions are made from men's wages, and when they become unemployed they receive no unemployment benefit.
Mr. McGilligan: They do.
Mr. Anthony: In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred it is stopped and they do not get it. Another thing the Minister for Industry and Commerce might consider is the fact that certain employers evade their responsibilities by every means in their power. I have come across certain cases in Cork City where men who have contributed for a number of years, and who, on the occasion of losing their employment, applied in the ordinary way to the Labour Exchange, but found that their cards were not fully stamped. Whilst a certain onus is put on the men, the State frequently steps in and prosecutes the offending employer, but there are certain cases which the Minister should consider with a view to remedying the state of affairs I complain of, particularly this. In one case the employer had used stamps which had been used before. Proceedings were taken against him in the law courts, and he was punished, but in punishing the employer the contributor or  employee was also punished, because on application to the local branch of the Labour Exchange he was informed that he could not be paid, and that the onus was on him to prosecute the defaulting employer. That is a type of case which, I fear, has become rather frequent in the country.
There is another class of evasion which perhaps is more frequent, and that is the case where employers up and down the country, when engaging men or, in some cases, women, suggest to them that they need not be insured persons, the result being that there are many thousands of workers in this country who, though insurable under this Act, are not insured. I am not one, at any time, who would advocate invoking the aid of the police force in a matter of this kind, but we have a very active, intelligent police force at the moment, and I would suggest that we can very usefully add to their other duties that of making inquiries. I do not want to set up a kind of inquisition, but I do suggest that inquiries could be made of workers in the various areas as to whether or not they were insured. Many great hardships are caused on account of this grievance. These workers become unemployed and have nothing to fall back on. They would not, in the ordinary circumstances when employed, miss the few pence a week, and the benefit would be something for them. It is the dual responsibility of the State and the employer to see that they have this at the end of their time to fall back on.
The results are frequently not very obvious. I cannot say that they are frequently brought to the public notice, because amongst this particular class of labour—the migrant class—we have numbers of people who are too proud to beg and often conceal their poverty. They would consider themselves in the light of informers if they were to go to the police authorities or any other State authorities and make complaints. The fact is—it is conduct frequently acquiesced in by some of the  workers, and I am not altogether blaming this class of employer—that this is very general. It should be taken notice of, because it throws a large number of men and women on the roads. In the long run it is the citizen who foots the bill, whether it be in the shape of rates or taxes. I suggest it would make socially for a better state of things if those people were looked after as they are entitled to be, seeing that we have legislation dealing with matters of this kind. This is a class of social legislation which, I agree, might be easily abused, but at the same time it has one side to its activities which have a very decent effect on the social life of the country. This gesture on behalf of the State is frequently termed “the dole.”“The dole” is a term which we absolutely reject. It is no dole, no charity. It is a form of insurance to which the State, the man, and his employer contribute. So, therefore, as far as we are concerned, we do not recognise that term at all. I commend to the notice of the Minister the suggestion I have made with regard to some of the defaulting employers. I will go so far as to say that even though stress of circumstances might compel workmen or women to engage with employers of the kind I have referred to, I would not spare the workman or woman more than the employer, because all those things react on the State, very much to its disadvantage.
Mr. Fahy: There is just one point that I should like to put to the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister. It is this: It is particularly true in the West of Ireland that the roadworkers are small farmers, or the sons of small farmers. They have to contribute to the Unemployment Fund. Very frequently they do not get benefits, owing to the fact that they have small holdings. It would be very difficult and I think unworkable to decide beforehand that such people should not contribute to the fund, but I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider whether it would not be possible, in case it is subsequently decided that  they are not entitled to unemployment benefit, to refund to such men the amounts they have contributed to the Unemployment Fund while employed.
Mr. Cassidy: I noticed last night, with some surprise, that when the Parliamentary Secretary referred to this Estimate five minutes before the adjournment he endeavoured to rush the Estimate through the House inside the space of five minutes and in endeavouring to do so he referred to it as a routine Estimate. I believe the Parliamentary Secretary, probably unknowingly, has by use of the expression “routine” really summarised the views of the Government in regard to the unemployment problem, and also in regard to the Unemployment Insurance problem. In presenting the Estimate to-day, he made reference to the fact that it was increased by £5,000 in comparison with last year, due to the fact that there was a greater amount coming from the Appropriation Account for this Estimate than there had been hitherto. At the same time, the Parliamentary Secretary did not tell the House that the Estimate for this year is reduced by over £9,000 as compared with the year 1927-28. Why that should be I fail to understand, in view of the fact that the unemployment problem to-day is much larger than it was two or three years ago.
Mr. McGilligan: Because that is a wrong deduction.
Mr. T.J. O'Connell: Where are your figures?
Mr. McGilligan: Here.
Mr. Cassidy: I understand the Estimate for 1927-28 was £249,200, and that this year the Estimate is £240,000. These are the figures in the official Estimates. I do not think I am incorrect in quoting them. I cannot see any reason why this year the Estimate, as presented to the House, should be over £9,000 lower than it was two years ago,  because I believe that the unemployment problem is even more acute to-day than it was two or three years ago. As I said, I do not believe the Government are paying attention to this particular question in the manner in which they should. We of the Labour Party believe, and I have reiterated it on a number of occasions in this House, that the principal duty of any Government in any country should be to look after the welfare of the people of the country.
An Ceann Comhairle: Perhaps the Deputy was not here when Deputy Lemass put as a point of order to me, when rising to speak on this matter, whether he could discuss Government measures to deal with unemployment. It was ruled on this particular Estimate that the question of the Government's attitude towards what is called the unemployment problem could not be discussed. There are other occasions for doing it. This is not the occasion. The amendment to Vote No. 3 will give, not perhaps a very wide opportunity, but a certain opportunity for dealing with that matter. I understand that Deputy O'Connell's amendment is intended to deal with it to some extent, and the Deputy may be able to say something on that. This Estimate merely deals with the expenses of the administration of the Unemployment Insurance and the Unemployment Exchanges. The Deputy cannot deal with the unemployment problem generally and the Government's attitude towards it. It is altogether outside the scope of this particular Estimate.
Mr. Cassidy: I accept your ruling in regard to that. At the same time, I submit that I am entitled to refer to the amount of money voted this year. That being so, I consider that the sum of money voted is not adequate, because we of the Labour Party believe that the unemployed should have adequate maintenance.
The Parliamentary Secretary, in his opening remarks this morning,  made use of these words: “Very little trouble has been experienced in the past year, as far as the administration of the Act is concerned.” I noticed a report in yesterday's “Independent” of remarks made by District Justice Kenny at Granard. He stated: “It is very hard for the unfortunate people in the country to understand the Act, and God help anyone depending on it.” Those words were used with reference to the National Health Insurance Act, but I think they apply, with even added force, to the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Mr. McGilligan: That is really good evidence!
Mr. Cassidy: In order to prove what I say, I will quote for the information of the House an extract from a letter which I received from a Labour county councillor in regard to the difficulties experienced by workers who are legitimately entitled to benefit and who are unable to get it. In the course of this letter, he says: “I would like to say that I have gathered from those who are legitimately trying to get their unemployment benefit that it is as difficult for them to get it as it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.” Reference has been made to the position of small farmers by Deputy Fahy. The position is that a number of small farmers who have uneconomic holdings, and who are employed by the county councils on the road, after being employed for three or four months, and having a sufficient number of stamps upon their cards to entitle them to obtain benefit, when they apply to the branch offices are refused. I presume that the reason they are refused is because they hold a few acres of land. Some time ago I raised this question. I think the Minister for Industry and Commerce told me at that time that his Department did not take into consideration the number of acres of land held by an applicant for unemployment insurance benefit. I think that is his contention.
Mr. McGilligan: I said it should not depend on that, that that is not the only circumstance.
Mr. Cassidy: It did not depend on that at all.
Mr. McGilligan: I did not say it did not depend on that at all. It is one of the factors, but not the only one.
Mr. Cassidy: I have here before me a letter from a manager of one of the Employment Exchanges in which he asks an applicant who applied to go before the Court of Referees, “How much of your holding is under tillage?”
Mr. McGilligan: A sane question.
Mr. Cassidy: I think it is most unfair, as far as a small farmer, more especially in the congested areas, is concerned, when he is employed on road work for a period of three, four or five months, that after he is knocked off the road work he is refused benefit. As far as the Parliamentary Secretary is concerned, he has stated that very little difficulty was experienced in the administration of the Act. I am certain that some of the workers experience very great difficulties.
Another matter to which I would desire to direct the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary is to the position of workers whose employers refuse to stamp unemployment insurance cards. It is all very well for the Department to say that as far as such an employee is concerned he has a legal remedy, that he can go to the courts and force the employer to stamp the cards. That may be so up to a certain point, but I would ask any Deputy to visualise the position of an employee towards an employer in that case. He knows that if he takes the employer to court he will have no hope of getting employment from him again. During the coming year I hope that the Department will look into this matter, and see that the onus and responsibility for getting an employer to stamp cards will not be thrown on the employee.
 Another question with regard to the administration of the Act to which I would like to refer concerns an employer who has been adjudicated a bankrupt. I understand that certain evidence dealing with this matter was tendered before the Bankruptcy Commission. If an employer becomes bankrupt, and has failed to stamp an employee's insurance card, the employee has no legal redress, even if he takes the employer to court, owing to the fact that the latter has been adjudicated a bankrupt. As far as applicants for benefit are concerned, especially in rural areas, very often they receive communications from the manager of the branch insurance exchanges telling them that their applications have been turned down under section so-and-so of the Act. An ordinary labourer cannot be expected to be a walking encyclopedia as far as the Unemployment Insurance Act is concerned, and I suggest that in future branch managers should state in plain language why a claim has been turned down. Again, if an employer appeals to the Court of Referees to get his case heard, very often he is told that the Court of Referees has considered his application and that it has been turned down, but no reason whatever is given. Very often they will not allow him to appeal to the umpire. If he is allowed to appeal to the umpire, very often we find that the case has been turned down, but no reason is given, and even when a Deputy takes up the matter with the Department it claims privilege, and says that the umpire is not compelled to give a reason as to why a claim was turned down. Another matter which has been in abeyance for a long time is the question of reciprocal arrangements between the Free State and the British authorities.
An Ceann Comhairle: That question was ruled out on three occasions.
Mr. Cassidy: I respectfully submit that, as far as this particular question is concerned, it has a direct  bearing on the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act as far as benefits for the workers are concerned.
An Ceann Comhairle: I have explained that three times in the Deputy's absence, and I do not think I need explain it any more. It was raised already on another Vote.
Mr. Cassidy: Very well, I suppose I will get an opportunity later on, whether on the Adjournment or otherwise.
An Ceann Comhairle: The occasion has passed now. It was done already.
Mr. Cassidy: I would like to say that I think the time has come when there should be a more business-like arrangement in regard to the administration of the Act. There should not be so much red tapeism as far as the difficulties experienced by workers are concerned, and I hope that when the House is asked to pass this Estimate next year—if the unemployment problem is not cured in the meantime—the Minister will see his way to introduce a Supplementary Estimate, so that uncovenanted benefit can be extended to workers, that they will not be cut off benefit after six months, and then thrown on the rates or have to go to the workhouse.
Mr. McGilligan: I was interested to find that the old problem of the landowner had come up again to-day and had come up expressed in the usual vague way. Deputy Anthony raised it first. Deputy Anthony committed himself to the statement that in 99 cases of 100 no benefit is paid. Deputy Fahy put it a little milder in his explanation. He said that mainly in congested districts he found that people who got on the fund by reason of being in an insurable occupation for a period found that they were turned down owing to the fact that they had small holdings. I want to deny that again, but apparently my denial of it does not do much good. Nevertheless, I  am going to continue in that course. No man is turned down simply because he has land. A tremendous number of other circumstances are taken into consideration—the amount of the holding, the type of land, the period of the year, how the land is used, and what the applicant's previous industrial history was, and in face of all that, a decision is given.
Mr. Cassidy: Might I point out to the Minister that apparently the branch managers are not aware of that, because in many cases they turned down applicants. The applicants get disheartened and do not appeal to the court of referees. I do not think that the branch managers look upon it in the same way as the Minister does.
Mr. McGilligan: The branch managers have had that type of instruction delivered to them over and over again. No manager is sent to control a branch without having for a certain period an officer from headquarters with him. That officer has more or less to induct him into the office and give him information about all points that are likely to arise as to these difficult cases—and these are notably difficult cases. Deputies from every Party have occasionally come to me with cases which they consider constitute a hardship, founded on the statement that they were turned down simply because the applicants had land, but to that extent that is not a fact. When I ask them to bring me cases so that I can get the details considered I find that a number of the objections disappear. If Deputies of all Parties would conspire in the matter to bring cases before me I would be pleased to help them. They could make a selection of the very best cases, cases in which men have a very few acres of land, or else where the land is almost worthless, cases in which they consider that men have been turned down at a period of the year in which land of the type held is no good to the men. Let me get a number of these cases and I will see what amendments  can be made. But it is absurd to state here, as has been stated over and over again, that 99 per cent. of the cases have been turned down in cases where the decision was on the question as to whether the man had land or had not. This case has been made very often. It was made last year on this debate, and I want to refer to the figures again. In the period from 19th June, 1926 to 1st July, 1927, there were a certain number of claims of small landowners, and the question was sent for decision. The number of claims received at headquarters was 2,595. The insurance officer, after considering each case, allowed 1,820.
Mr. Cassidy: And how many appealed and were turned down?
Mr. McGilligan: Let me go on. The Deputy cannot get everything in the one breath. Out of the 2,595 sent in, 1,800 were allowed right off the reel, 775 were turned down, and 378 of the 775 turned down appealed to the Court of Referees. The Court of Referees recommended that 198 should be allowed and that 179 should be disallowed. With some of the recommendations to allow the insurance officer did not agree, and he sent forward 59 cases on his own to the umpire. These 59, with 36 additional applications that in some way or other arose before the umpire, came up for decision, and the umpire allowed eight and disallowed 87. Now, of the whole number, between cases allowed in the first instance by the insurance officer and cases ultimately allowed on appeal, 1,966 of the 2,595 cases questioned were allowed, or about 75 per cent. not one per cent., as Deputy Anthony would have us believe. With reference to this phrase about a camel going through the eye of a needle I never knew a camel yet that could go through the eye of a needle, but 75 per cent. of these cases got through here.
Mr. Anthony: I never mentioned a camel at all. I left that to Deputy Cassidy.
Mr. McGilligan: Deputy Fahy comes along with a contribution to the solution of this problem. He suggests that if it be decided not to pay a landowner who has come into insurable employment, and who has stamps to his credit, then we should refund the contributions to him. That is just a little better than the suggestion that no unemployment insurance contributions should be paid by these people at all. I do not think that the Labour Party would hold with the view that they should be regarded as non-insurable, because the result of that would obviously be that the small landowners would get all the work on the roads. What is the difference between that and the other suggestion? I presume, if you are going to refund to the landowner in a case where his claim was turned down, in justice there would have to be refunds both to the employer and to the State, and we get the same position, except that we do not declare it.
Mr. Fahy: Why should the State or the employer get it back?
Mr. McGilligan: I want to hear a case made why the employee should get it back and why the other two should not. There are three parties building up the fund—the State, the employer and the employee. All three pay. Each case comes up when, for a particular reason, a man's claim to benefit is not allowed, the reason being that there is employment available for him. Now, this Unemployment Insurance Fund insures against unemployment, and if it is decided by the umpire, by the Court of Referees and by the insurance officer, that there is employment for that man, it is suggested that the State should pay back that man his contributions. That is not looking at the scheme as an insurance against unemployment, but is looking at it as a sort of savings bank.
Mr. Lemass: But the employment that is available for the man after he leaves the work on the road is not insurable employment. The point you want to provide against is  that there will not be an inducement to employers to employ landowners only, who will not be entitled to benefit. The only way to do that is to make the employer contribute, irrespective of whom he employs.
Mr. McGilligan: Nonsense. Why not say that the girl who had been employed in Player's factory, having originally been in domestic service, and who has gone back to domestic service, having stamps to her credit, should be entitled to benefit? That is the same type of case. Domestic service is not an insurable occupation. The land-owner is actually in possession of his land at the time when the court decides that the land is of value to him and gives him employment. How can one logically divide those two cases? Remember that the Insurance Fund is built up on the basis of actuarial calculations on certain rates. If we are to say to certain people: “Of course, you have paid in, but we regard you as entitled to a refund of one-third of your contributions,” we are going to make a change in the fund. It would mean that the other type of people, the men who have no land to fall back on, would have to pay more.
The “Dundalk Democrat” of the 1st inst. contains a report of a meeting of the Dundalk Trade and Labour Council. One member said: “The first consideration should be the protection of the funds, so that they would be available for those who paid for them when required”—a very sensible view. “He did not think that men with farms of ten to fifteen acres, or even less, should be entitled to benefit.” That is a clear-cut statement. He would not have them because a man had land, not with all the attendant circumstances, but simply for that fact, “and especially when they let their land by con-acre, or let it run wild.” Then he said, “Numerous cases of this sort were before the court recently.” I would like people to get their heads together, and produce cases in regard to which they say there is a hardship. I do not believe  that any hardship has been shown at all from the time of my introduction to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I think I met the allegations that were made, that there were tremendous hardships in the case of those men who paid and never got benefit. I have had people from outside coming to me to say that cases were very hard to decide. I have been looking into this question year after year, and I have asked Deputies to bring me cases, either openly in the House or privately. Since that invitation was issued one case was raised by Deputy Ward, a comparatively hopeless case, from the point of view of the people who wished to show that there is hardship.
If we do agree that there is hardship, let us get some sort of agreement as to how to settle it. It will not be settled on the lines of not asking the men to pay, or of refunding to the employee when his claim is turned down, because when it is turned down it is for the reason that the thing against which he is insured is not present. He is insured against unemployment; employment is there, based on a variety of circumstances, and that is the only reason why his claim is turned down. I would appeal to Deputies to keep this thing out of the region simply of the yearly discussion on this Vote that there has been. Let there be amalgamation of Parties on this thing, and let us get the best cases that can be brought forward, so that we can see if there is hardship, and arrive at some decision as to easing the situation. But we have a number of other things to bear in mind as well as single cases. We have the fund to build up. We are depending on that fund mainly on people who are in insurable occupations all the time. That was the main consideration in establishing the fund, and that should be kept before people's minds.
On other points I have really nothing to say, except that on a previous Estimate a Deputy referred to vacancies, and how far employment exchanges were anything except unemployment  exchanges—just for registering unemployment. I stated before that the average number of vacancies notified and filled was about 16,000. The list I have before me for the period ended May 6th, 1929, shows that 17,252 vacancies were filled by means of the employment exchanges.
Mr. Lemass: In the year?
Mr. McGilligan: In the year ended 6th May, 1929. I could not make out the point to which Deputy Cassidy referred with regard to the drop in the State contribution. I thought first that he was referring to Sub-head G. That is really only a test with regard to the increase in employment. An increase in employment is clearly shown when the State contribution goes up, because the State contribution goes up proportionately to the amount subscribed by employers and employees. That is subscribed only when people are in employment. Consequently if there is an increased contribution, that is decidedly the clearest indication that one can have that there is an increase in employment, though the measure of it is a little vague. The State contribution has gone up year by year.
Mr. Lemass: That item showed a decrease for last year.
Mr. McGilligan: It showed a decrease over the previous year, because in the previous year there was a windfall by reason of £49,000 being paid by the British Government in respect of ex-soldiers. The fund gained by that, and an amount proportionate to that sum had to be contributed by the Government. But the normal State grant estimated for 1927-28 was £249,200. Last year it was £235,000, and this year it is £240,000.
Mr. Lemass: Will the Minister state if the last figure is an estimate of the amount of the contribution which will be made by the State this year, or if it is calculated upon any definite basis?
Mr. McGilligan: It arises mainly  out of the previous year. We take quarters of the year in conjunction with quarters in the previous year.
Mr. Lemass: I would be glad if the Minister would deal with the point raised by Deputy Morrissey, and explain why the reduction in the allowances and remuneration of branch managers has been decided on. There is some confusion as to whether these reductions are necessary and whether they are not too severe.
Mr. McGilligan: I will not deal with that at the moment.
Mr. Dolan: The Minister has dealt with some of the more important points raised on this Vote.
Deputy Lemass raised a question with regard to some items which are included in other Votes. That is a matter of accountancy, and they are all clearly set out under the different headings. If the Deputy looks at this particular Estimate he will see that we give an indication on page 247 of the different amounts estimated under the different Votes. Under Vote No. 56 we have the sum of £11,500; under Vote 11 we have an estimated sum for office accommodation, buildings, furniture, etc., and we have provision for other items under Vote 17. All these items are ultimately borne by the Departments concerned. There is no intention of introducing legislation to make any change in the incidence of the Insurance Acts. Of course we are constantly examining the position from the point of view of getting better administration of the office. Anything that can be done in that way is being done from time to time by re-arrangement. Deputy Morrissey referred to the working of the branches, and complained that in many instances there were delays, and that the workers had to travel long distances at their own expense. The position in that respect is quite simple, and quite easy to understand. In 98 per cent. of the claims that are made, payment is awarded after the first waiting week. I have not the exact figures before me, but I venture to say that in only about 2  per cent. of the cases is there any difficulty whatever, so that all this question of delay, trouble, and inconvenience concerns only a very small percentage of insured persons. The branches do everything possible to facilitate the workers, and the machinery in connection with them runs quite smoothly. Payment is made after the first waiting week, which is the statutory period for waiting. We have a scheme for the setting up of associations of work-people who provide, out of their own fund, benefits for their own members. We have a scheme for the making of contributions-in-aid towards the expenses of the work thereby incurred. That represents the £350 to which Deputy Morrissey refers.
Mr. Lemass: I take it that there is only one such association under the scheme at the present time.
Mr. Dolan: No.
Mr. Anthony: I know of one myself in Cork.
Mr. Dolan: It is laid down by statute how such arrangements can be made. It is open to any association to make arrangements with the Department concerned. The Court of Referees has been referred to constantly. One would think from the references that have been made to it that it had no sympathy with the workers or with anything that would facilitate the working of the Act. The Court of Referees is composed of a representative of the workers, a representative of the employers, and an independent chairman with legal qualifications. The Court of Referees gives judicial and fair decisions in every case that comes before it. If there is a prima facie case, there is very little trouble. Even in cases where the worker disagrees with a decision reached by the Court of Referees, if there is the least likelihood of a worker succeeding on appeal, then his expenses are paid. He gets a voucher that will enable him to attend, but in a case where it is obvious that there is no chance  of a decision already reached being reversed, and where the issuing of vouchers for the attendance of workers or witnesses in a case of that kind would only be adding on unnecessary expense, then vouchers are not issued.
Deputy Morrissey wanted an explanation of the meaning of advances to work-people. When the employment exchanges secure work for a person who has to travel a distance, it is customary, if that person has not the money to pay his train fare, to advance the money to him until he is in a position to repay it. That is the meaning of “advances to workers.” There is no question of delay in the payment of benefit. I think I have already dealt with that. With regard to the question raised by Deputy Briscoe as to the neglect of employers to stamp cards, what happens is this: there are two parties involved in the affixing of insurance stamps, and it is the duty of the employee to see that his card is stamped by the employer. Immediately that it is brought to the notice of the officials of the Department that an employer has not stamped cards, we come down on him at once, and a prosecution is instituted. There is no question at that stage of the worker having to institute proceedings himself to have his card stamped. Deputy Broderick, and I think some other Deputies, mentioned that there had been delay in the investigation of the claims of workers going out of benefit. That is much the same question as the stamping of cards. The Deputy said that the worker must bring the employer to court. That is not so. The question with regard to road workers, and the question raised by Deputy Cassidy, have already been dealt with by the Minister. The statement made by District Justice Kenny was not in reference to the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Mr. Cassidy: It applies equally.
Mr. Dolan: On the National Health Insurance Act Deputy Morrissey thought that the total of reductions  under Sub-head AA was on account of the reductions in the salaries paid to branch managers. That is not so. All the reduction is not accounted for under that particular head. A considerable sum is accounted for under the head of reduction of salaries to branch managers. This question has already been dealt with very fully by the Minister by way of question and answer. It was raised by Deputy Lemass, and the questions and answers dealing with it will be found in the Official Debates, column 1016. The position about these branch managers is that they are part-time employees. When they were originally employed they were engaged as part-time employees, and their salaries were fixed in proportion to the amount of work they would have to perform. In some instances, if the new scale of salaries had not been brought in, some of these men would be receiving even less than what they are receiving under the new scale which has been adopted. We have adopted a scale which, in our opinion, is quite reasonable and fair for the amount of work that these men do, and the work of their offices has not been interfered with. It is proceeding smoothly and efficiently. We are satisfied that everything that should be attended to is being attended to, and that the interest of the different parties concerned in the working of unemployment insurance is being looked after. The great thing the employment exchanges do is that they bring together the worker and the employee. They act as a clearing-house and get one in touch with the other. Over a period of years our average of workers placed in employment through the medium of the labour exchange would be about 17,000 per annum. We consider that the employment exchanges are doing very great work indeed, and they make for a more harmonious association between employer and the employee.
Mr. Corish: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary when we may expect to have a report in connection with the burning of the stamps in  the offices of the Wexford County Council last January? As the Minister is aware, the men have been awaiting benefits because their stamps cannot be traced.
Mr. McGilligan: That will depend entirely on the report received from the National Health Insurance inspectors.
Mr. Corish: When is it expected? This is going on since last January.
Mr. McGilligan: It is a difficult case, and I had better not prejudice it by saying anything on it.
Mr. Anthony: Could the Minister tell us the number of unemployed in Saorstát Eireann on the occasion of the last census? We have been asking for a return as to the number of unemployed for years.
Mr. McGilligan: I have explained over and over again that the volumes in connection with the census are issued in a particular order as it best fits in with the type of work the Statistical Branch is doing. I stated what the order was to be. The volume will come as soon as it can be got out, but it is not being delayed for any reason that I know.
Mr. Cassidy: In view of the fact that a discussion on reciprocal arrangements has been ruled out, I wonder would I be in order in asking whether negotiations have taken place in the matter?
An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy has supplied the reason why he cannot be in order.
Mr. McGilligan: This matter of reciprocal arrangements with Northern Ireland was the subject of discussion, and almost the subject of complaint, by representatives of the Free State at Geneva. As a result, there is a promise that certain approaches will be made to the Northern Government with a view to getting arrangements for reciprocity. We have always had approaches with a view to getting reciprocal arrangements, but we have not succeeded in getting receiprocity.
Mr. Lemass: I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that his Department should consider the advisability of issuing a White Paper explaining the law with reference to unemployment insurance as it now exists, like the British Government did in 1927. A number of Acts have been passed making alterations in the original Insurance Act. It would convenience those concerned in the administration of the Act, and those who are entitled to benefit under it, if they could set out in a concise form the present legal position in relation to unemployment insurance.
Mr. McGilligan: I am not sure that there have been any changes in this country which will affect the vast majority of the people who either pay contributions into the Unemployment Insurance Fund or are likely to receive benefit. Nevertheless, if it seems likely that some such summary, as suggested, would explain the matter better and save the Deputies from asking questions, I will look into it.
Mr. Lemass: It would save the Deputies from looking up so many Acts.
Mr. Dolan: Deputy Morrissey asked for the number of cases referred to the Court of Referees. The total number of cases heard in the year ending 31st May were 4,161; recommended to be allowed, 2,195; disallowed, 1,966. In the same period the number of cases referred to the umpire were 193; allowed, 25; disallowed, 167; referred back to the Court of Referees, 1.
Vote put and agreed to.
Mr. McGilligan: I move:—
Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £12,751 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith inioctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1930, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí  na hOifige Clárathachta Maoine Tionnscail agus Tráchtála (Uimh. 16 de 1927).
That a sum not exceeding £12,751 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, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Industrial and Commercial Property Registration Office (No. 16 of 1927).
There is no change in this Vote requiring great elaboration at the moment. The receipts of the office last year, the first available year we have before us, amounted to something less than was estimated. They are now down to about £27,000, and it is expected it will be no less this year.
Mr. Byrne: I think the Minister should be congratulated that this Estimate is so satisfactory. There is a net decrease of £1,400 as compared with last year's Estimate in this Vote. There is also the significant fact that incoming receipts amount to over £35,000. These, in my opinion, are two healthy signs of the development of the State through this important office.
Mr. McGilligan: The £35,000 is an estimate.
Mr. Byrne: Estimated incoming receipts. Last year, in dealing with this Vote, it was generally agreed that this office was passing through a period of what might be called evolution. Certain anomalies that existed under the patent law were pointed out to this House. One was that in England a man able to complete and perfect his own design could obtain a patent for the sum of £5, while here, under the existing law, a patentee had, whether he liked it or not, whether capable of making his own design or not, and completing his own design, to obtain the services of a patent agent, which involved considerable expense, to which in England the patentee was not subject. Attention was also drawn to the fact that  the same advantage was not derived from the reciprocity that existed between the English and Irish patent offices. The question was asked, and it did not receive an answer: did the Irish patentee receive the same reciprocal advantages as the English patentee?
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.
Mr. Byrne: I wish to refer to the change in the controllership of this Department. I had the privilege of meeting the Comptroller of the Department last year, and, in my opinion, he was one of the finest men who could be at the head of affairs in this particular Department. He has unfortunately been taken away and replaced by another man. I do not wish to say one word of criticism, for it would be unjust to do so, of the new man; but I suggest that it was an unwise proceeding, having regard to the fact that he was such an expert, to change the last man until the patent law had developed to a more perfect state than at present.
It would be almost needless for me to say how important this office is to the future of this State. The patent of Mr. Drumm to which reference was made in this House would be just one instance to show how important this office can be in the development and in the progress of this country in the future. Under the existing law I would like to ask if any safeguard exists for the prevention of piracy. Piracy in patents is not an unknown thing. It is quite common in some countries, which are so expert in carrying out their piratical designs that they succeed in escaping being brought under the law for infringement. I remember one instance many years ago where an Irish inventor had obtained a patent for a cycle spoke and when he came to develop it he found that the Germans had anticipated him, working, as he afterwards learned, practically on his design.
I notice here under Sub-head D a subscription of £170 to the International Union for protection. I  would like the Minister to say what the nature, scope and efficiency of that protection is that arises under this sub-head and if any other means exists internationally for the protection of patents than arise from the subscription to the International Union.
It is not my intention to criticise this Vote in any way, but I realise the very great importance of this particular Estimate. In dealing with the Vote last year the Minister made a definite promise to the House that he would appoint a committee to inquire into the existing patent law and to see if ways and means could be devised for the improvement of it. I merely ask the Minister why that committee has not been appointed and whether he will inform the House if he intends to appoint it and the approximate date at which it will begin to function.
Mr. McGilligan: The only protection against piracy that there is in any country is by patent and copyright and this industrial property law. We have a law. People who are ingenious enough may really filch the results of other people's brains, but if you take the matter— the Deputy described it as anticipation—there is no piracy. If, in fact, one man has got ahead of another, it is in fact the second man who has been the pirate.
Mr. Byrne: What I intended to convey was that by underhand methods the design had been obtained by German agents and used before the original patentee was able to develop his invention.
Mr. McGilligan: That either was or was not a breach of the law. If it was a breach of the law, then action should have been taken against the individual concerned. If it was not, it was either because a person had certain rights or because there was a loophole in the law. So far our law has not been tested to any extent,, and one does not know what loopholes may be in it; but it is a type of industrial property legislation which is more or less in  common form right through the world. There are different methods of office treatment, but the legislation is pretty definitely the same, and there are international conventions regulating the whole thing. We have our laws. In addition to that we are in touch with the two unions mentioned in the sub-head, one dealing with such things as patents, trade marks, and designs, and the other with copyright generally. There is a convention which has certain regulations of law as it affects the nationals of all countries who are members of the Union. Being a member of the Union, we are protected, and in so far as protection is given here, we will be protected in the other countries that are members of the Union. We have no special arrangement with Great Britain, and, to my knowledge, Great Britain gets no special rights here that the national of any other country who is a member of a patent or copyright union would not, also, have here, and we have exactly the same rights in these other countries.
As to the Committee, I said last year that it was recognised that the legislation that was introduced in the first instance would have to undergo very many changes before we get a complete system; that, in fact, the Bill has taken two years to prepare, and, after being introduced, had eventually to be withdrawn and brought in in another form; that it suffered one very big change on the Report Stage in the Seanad, and that the only thing I could say to either the Seanad or this House was that we had to have some type of legislation governing industrial and commercial property, that we believed this would suit the circumstances of the moment, but that the situation was a changing one. I never pledged myself to appoint a Committee within any given time, and I never promised, and I would not promise, to appoint a Committee other than a Departmental Committee. I have had the intention for a long time to get the whole matter reconsidered  in the light of certain things. There are one or two big things which have happened since. There has been a Copyright Union meeting held and certain arrangements made. Small changes have recently been introduced in our law arising out of this Convention. There are certain other bigger things which have happened, and other things which are happening.
Mr. Byrne: Does not the Copyright Bill which we have just passed prove that the whole question needs to be looked into?
Mr. McGilligan: The Copyright Bill which we have passed simply amends a defect which the court found in the law. That is not the sort of thing that I want the Committee to investigate. The Committee would never have their attention directed to that point, because the intention of the legislation at the time was to allow copyright subsisting prior to December, 1921, to run in the Free State and also patent and other rights. The attention of the Committee would never have been directed to that point, as it was believed that the intention was carried out. It has now been seen that it was not.
Mr. Byrne: If a copyright did not exist under the existing law, would it not be possible that a court would decide that a patent did not exist?
Mr. McGilligan: That is the sort of thing no Committee would ever be set up to look into. One sets out an intention. It is subjected to criticism as it goes through the two Houses. It is subjected to Departmental criticism and to the criticism of the draughtsman, and one assumes, until a court decision is given to the countrary, that the law is what was intended to be the law and what everybody thought it was. The only thing I would appoint a Committee to deal with is as to what changes in the system—not the principle—might now be rendered desirable by reason of certain changes that took place here. One of the biggest changes is that we have now, in our possession, complete references,  and such a library' that we can have searches made. There is material certainly to allow for searches being made in the Patent Office here instead of in London, but I am not sure, even at this point, that all that material has been so indexed and classified that it is in order for patent agents easily to make searches. The Committee will get going soon, but I cannot say how soon as yet. It is going to be delayed by reason of the fact that a new controller has recently been appointed. It is quite clear that it is going to take him some little time to get his bearings, and I would not think of throwing him out of his ordinary line of work to discuss the bigger matter of how far the law requires adjustment to the new circumstances until he gets to know the old law and the present circumstances, and is in a position to give his judgment upon the matter.
Mr. Byrne: It will only be a Departmental Committee?
Mr. McGilligan: Completely and entirely. The only other comment that I would make is that I will give an opportunity to interested people to send in suggestions as to amendments in the law, but I take it that the best approach to any change would be to allow the people who are most intimately connected with the working of the present system to see whether there are any defects apparent and whether any improvement could be made. That Committee will be set up some time, but I cannot even say approximately when. It will depend on how soon the big rush of work on the Patent Office, in the beginning, and which is still continuing, ceases, and when we get into a more normal period, and how soon the new controller finds himself with a certain amount of leisure to devote to the sort of changes that may be found desirable.
Question put and agreed to.
Mr. McGilligan: I move:—
Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £4,257 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, 1930, chun Deontas i gCabhair do Chostaisí Chumann na Náisiún, agus chun Costaisí eile mar gheall air sin.
That a sum not exceeding £4,257 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, 1930, for a Grant-in-Aid of the Expenses of the League of Nations, and for other Expenses in connection therewith.
Seán T. O Ceallaigh: Nílim róshásta go bhfuilimíd ag fagháil mórán tairbhe as an méid airgid a táimuid ag caitheamh ó bhlian go blian ar Chumann na Náisiún. Tá an Rialtas ag iarraidh orrainn £8,000 a thabhairt fé'n Vóta so i gcóir Cumann na Náisiún. Acht ní h-é sin iomlán an airgid atá an Rialtas ag ceapadh do chaitheamh ar an obair so i mbliadna. Fé Vóta a 56, tá an Rialtas ag iarraidh orrainn £4,780 a thabhairt do Chumann na Náisiún, leis, no do roinnt áirithe de'n chumann—an t-Oifig Idir Náisiúntach Lucht Oibre. Ní thuigim cé'n fá nach gcuirtear an dhá shuim airgid so le chéile fé aon Vóta amháin. Baineann siad go dlúth le chéile.
Mar a dubhairt mé, nílim sásta gur fiú do'n Stait so £13,000 púnt sa mblian do chaitheamh ar an obair so. Níl an t-airgead ró fhlúirseach againn annso, agus tá a lán slighthe im thuairim-se gur féidir linn an méid mór airgid so do chaitheamh as a thiocfadh níos mó tairbhe do'n Stait. Anois, díreach, bhí ceist an díomhaointis fé dhíospóireacht againn. Tá a fhíos againn go léir go bhfuil a lán diomhaointis san Stait indiu agus tá a lán daoine ar aigne gur mó an buntaiste a thiocfadh as dá gcaithfí an méid airgid so ar rudaí a bhaineas le ceist an diomhaointis sa tír.
Níor mhaith liom a rá go deimhnighthe anois gur cóir dúinn an t-airgead so do chosg nó an Vóta do dhiúltú. Nílim ró-chinnte fé anois, mar níl an oiread eolais agam mar  gheall air agus badh mhaith liom nó a thabhairfadh seans dom m'aigne do dhéanamh suas ar an gceist. Támuid gan eolas mar gheall ar an obair tá ar siúl ag Cumann na Náisiún. Dá mbéadh eolas iomlán againn ar an obair atá ar siúl ag Cumann na Náisiún, mar ba chóir, agus dá dtabharfadh an Rialtas cúnntas dúinn, gach blian, ar an obair atá 'gá dhéanamh, b'feidir go mbeidhimíd sásta leis an Vóta so. Creidim go mba chóir do'n Aireacht cúnntas bliantamhail ar obair Chumann na Náisiún, chomh fada agus a bhaineas sé linne, a thabhairt do'n Dáil. Agus, rud eile, sé mo thuairim go mba chóir go dtabharfi gach dream toscairí a chuireann an t-Aire anonn go Genebha gach blian cúnntas do'n Dáil ar an gnó do dineadh ag na cruinnighthe ar a rabhadar mar toscairí. Díolann an Dáil so costaisí leo agus ní ró-mhór an rud é a iarradh ar an Aireacht nó ar lucht na toscaireachta so cúnntas do thabhairt ar an obair do rinneadar.
Cím go bhfuil iarrtas ar £431 sa mbreis shíos san Vóta so, agus ba mhian liom miniú d'fhágail ar cé'n fáth go bhfuil an t-iarrtas so ag dul i méid. Ár n-dó, is mór ar fad an méid airgid a támuid ag díol cheana do'n Chumann so, agus níor mhaith liom, gan miniú ceart d'fháil, a thuilleadh airgead a dhíol leis.
Mr. Anthony: I agree with practically everything that Deputy O'Kelly has said, particularly with his reference to the expenditure in connection with the sum estimated for this year. No doubt, as he says, we have not had any account from time to time of the activities of the League of Nations. We have had to depend altogether on Press reports. While I have not been able to follow everything that Deputy O'Kelly said, I must say that I heartily endorse that portion of his remarks when he suggested——
Dr. Hennessy: Might I interrupt just to make a suggestion that Deputies should speak in the language with which they are most familiar?
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: That is an irrelevant interruption.
Dr. Hennessy: I just desire to say that an eminent authority on Gaelic was in this House recently and he said that all those whom he heard speaking with an acquired knowledge of Irish were absolutely unintelligible.
Mr. Anthony: Is ceart é sin. I want to say that Deputy O'Kelly was quite intelligible to me in some portions of his speech although I make no claim to have a good knowledge of Irish.
Mr. Carey: There are many men who know Irish but do not speak it.
Mr. Anthony: That may be so. I am not opposing the Vote, but I suggest that it is up to the Minister in charge of this Department to let the House know from time to time what is being done and to give us some information about the activities of the League. I may say, however, that we of the Labour Party are not altogether without information from time to time. We get through various channels but, I regret to say, not through official channels in this House, information as to what is being done in the International Labour Office. Deputy O'Kelly referred to the selection of delegates to the Geneva Conference. So far as the Labour Party is concerned, we have entire confidence in the delegates selected by that Party. They have done very useful work at Geneva. It would be of great advantage to those of us who believe in the ideals underlying the establishment of the League of Nations to have the activities of the League adverted to more frequently in this House.
I know as a matter of fact that a journal called “Concord” is published monthly. It deals with the work of the League, and there are many interesting discussions which take place from time to time at Geneva which should be reproduced, either in Irish or English, so that we would be able to take an intelligent interest in what is going  on there. We have not, for instance, had any official communication in this House, except by way of an answer to an interjection from a Deputy on the Opposition Benches, as to what is being done in regard to the establishment of an eight-hour day. We know that Great Britain, while acknowledging through the ordinary machinery of trade unions and employers' organisations, and putting into practice an eight-hour day, never really subscribed to that principle at the League of Nations. We know now, though not officially, that Great Britain is about to take steps to ratify that agreement. These are, perhaps, small matters, but they are important enough for us to be told something about. The League of Nations has a wonderful future before it, particularly so far as small nations like ours are concerned, and such nations have everything to gain and nothing to lose by membership of the League. So far as expenditure goes, this is one of the most useful ways in which money could be spent. I, as a pacifist, in this direction at any rate, hope that one of these days we will be able to subscribe to the full policy of disarmament. Without attempting to enter into the big field of international politics, I suggest seriously that there is a tremendous lot in the suggestion of Deputy O'Kelly that we should have more information, and that we should not depend on outside and unofficial sources for information in regard to the activities of the League.
Mr. Lemass: There are one or two points on which, I think, the Minister should have attempted to give information when introducing the Estimate. The very fact that there are no official means provided by which the activities of the Saorstát representatives at the League can be made available to Deputies should have made him realise the necessity, when introducing this Estimate, for giving some brief review of the events in which the Saorstát delegates at Geneva were concerned during the year. For instance, I read recently in the Press that the Saorstát  representative—prompted, no doubt, by the dispute in America over the precedence to be given to the Vice-President's sister—intend raising the matter of the seats to be given to the Saorstát's representatives at State dinners at which they and other Dominion representatives are to be present.
Mr. McGilligan: Where did you see that?
Mr. Lemass: I think it was in the “Irish Times.” There is also the question of nominating a candidate for election to the Council of the League to represent the British Dominions next year when the present Canadian representative will retire.
Mr. McGilligan: He does not retire next year; that is the difficulty.
Mr. Lemass: When he retires. No details have been given.
Mr. McGilligan: There are no details to give.
Mr. Lemass: If we had any machinery by which we could be informed as to what is happening, and what status has been accorded to our representatives, we could discuss the matter more intelligently, but we have to rely on such information as we can glean from the columns of the daily Press or by listening to rumours which we hear in this connection. I would be glad if the Minister would inform us whether the Saorstát representatives have adopted any definite policy in regard to the questions discussed at Geneva. There has been a big question under discussion, and it has been raised at the instance of German delegates, namely, the treatment of minorities, especially in regard to those established by the Treaty of 1918. Has the Saorstát representative adopted any attitude in regard to that, or does he sit there doing nothing or merely doing what the British representative tells him to do? Are the Government interested? They should be interested. We as a nation find ourselves in a position in which a number of minorities are at  present, and we should be able to give some definite idea as to how national minorities of that kind should be treated. If we are going to spend money to maintain this institution and send delegates there we would like to know whether they pursue a definite policy, or do they simply do what seems best to them on the spur of the moment? We are asked to spend money which will be largely wasted if the Saorstát Government have no definite policy. If there is a definite policy we should be told what it is, either through the Minister when introducing this Estimate or through some monthly publication or report. I would like the Minister to give a brief review of what is happening in regard to the various questions on which the Saorstát has expressed an opinion, and as to the effect of its opinion on the League, whether such opinions were adopted or whether contrary opinions prevailed; also whether, as a result of agreements arrived at, the Saorstát undertook commitments which may prove to our disadvantage; and, further, if as a result of these commitments we are likely to enjoy any advantages. The whole matter should not be left as it has been left up to the present. We are asked to pass an annual Vote concerning which no information is given, and no source of information is open to Deputies except that available through the columns of the daily Press.
Mr. McGilligan: After the debate to-day I feel that I should withdraw from the House the information which has been given but which nobody, apparently, has bothered to read. Deputy Lemass founded a few minutes' speech on the fact that no information has been given. Apparently he has not tried to find out whether any information has been given.
Mr. Lemass: I have.
Mr. McGilligan: A report has been laid on the Table of both Houses with regard to the last delegation that we sent to the League.  That is not from the present delegation, as they cannot report until they come back. Apparently nobody has read a line of the report issued. They just come here and complain that there is no information available. There is, as I say, a report.
Mr. Lemass: What report is that?
Mr. McGilligan: There was a report issued of the last delegation to the Assembly. Deputies do not apparently know that it was issued.
Mr. Lemass: It was kept very secret.
Mr. McGilligan: It was put in the ordinary way in the Library. Apparently Deputy O'Kelly is so concerned about information being given that he does not know it either. In addition, I gave in a general way a resumé of the point of view formed by the delegation on the big question of the day—in fact, the raison d'être of the League of Nations—the peace of the world. I feel not so absolutely certain, but I feel pretty certain, that there are also in the Library bound volumes giving the accounts of the various meetings of the International Labour Office and of the-League of Nations Assembly from year to year. I cannot break in on them and each year issue a resumé of the history of the League up to date for the benefit of individual newcomers to the House. If people want to get an historical introduction of the League, why it was founded and its present composition, I think that can be done; but I think there are very few Deputies——
Mr. O'Kelly: The Minister is misrepresenting what I said when he talks about giving a history of the introduction of the League. We never asked for that. We probably know more about the historical aspect of the League of Nations, some of us at any rate, than the Minister does. What we ask for is reports from our own delegation, from those we are paying and sending out there with money that is paid by the taxpayer.
 We ask for their point of view of what has happened at the League of Nations. We know there are reports. We have got official reports of the League, but we want the point of view of those we sent there, and whose expenses we pay. We want to get their viewpoint, in respect of anything that would be of value, put before us.
Mr. McGilligan: There was a reference made to the history of the League and to the activities of the League. If I am to take that as referring to its activities in a particular year, then I may say in regard to the last delegation, the only delegation which had to report to me as Minister for External Affairs, its report has been published. The International Labour Offices, which are not specially on the Vote and which have been referred to, will give reports from time to time, particularly on any matter in which we have a special interest, such as there was at this year's meeting. As to the point that there are two Votes, I think that is a reasonable division, particularly as anyone can see that there is no attempt to hide anything or to delude people. There is a statement under Sub-head A that the item is “the share of Saorstát Eireann of the general expenses of the League including the expenses of the permanent Court of International Justice but excluding those of the International Labour Organisation.” There is there a definite indication. There is a further footnote on page 302, which says that “the contribution of Saorstát Eireann to the League of Nations includes a contribution to the expenses of the International Labour Organisation. Provision for the latter contribution and for the travelling, etc., expenses of the delegation and staff, for the annual conferences of the organisation is not made under Sub-head A of this Estimate but is made in the Estimate for Industry and Commerce.” So that the public, if it is a discerning public and has any intelligence, quite easily and very simply can get details of the amount voted. It seems to be a better segregation  that money which is specially voted in connection with the International Labour Office connected with the labour side, the peace in industry side, is included in the Vote of the Ministry for Industry and Commerce, and the rest left to this special vote.
I am asked to say what our delegates do, and I reply generally by saying that our reports have been and will be published as often as there are delegations. I do not suppose that it would serve any useful purpose to produce monthly reports of the proceedings of the League. I think it would be best to produce summaries after our delegations visit the League of Nations, as they do visit each year, and after visits to the International Labour Office, which take place a few times a year. With regard to the point which Deputy Lemass referred to, I think he would be much better advised to pay no attention to rumours of that kind, particularly to rumours of the type to which he has referred. I know nothing about the procedure in regard to a vacant seat. It has not figured on the agenda of any meeting I know of, privately, openly, or in any group of the League of Nations, or in connection with it. As to our attempting to run for a seat which is not yet vacant, I know nothing. I have seen that stated in the paper, but I do not know where the information came from. It is one of those things which fill a paragraph and can be taken by Deputies and given different colours here. The expenses of the League have gone up, but what Deputies are asked to do is to vote money to pay our share. It is on a sort of proportional basis. We pay ten units out of something like 910 units. The actual budget of the League is dealt with each year by a special committee which is set up to deal with the finances of the League. It votes money for expenses, and it keeps a close eye on them.
As long as new activities are given to the League, as they have been from time to time, particularly on the Labour side, and as long as new fields are created for survey, particularly in industry, their is going to be extra expenditure incurred at  Geneva. Consequently our share will show some small increase. There is no committee about which there is so much violent disagreement at the League of Nations as the Budget Committee, which deals with the whole expenditure of the League. The small States, whose share is not an absolutely big one but one which is relatively large in proportion to their resources, are most vocal and most watchful to keep expenditure down. Some of the big nations have rather magnificent ideas of the work which could be done, but they are kept definitely in check by the small nations on this budgetary committee. However, expenditure did go up, and consequently we have had to pay a little extra. I think that the only way in which the reports can be issued is sometime after the delegations have gone, and when the final reports, as printed by the League, have come through. These reports can then be issued definitely, giving the part played by the members of the Free State delegation.
Incidental to that, there may be reference to the larger volumes which will contain the more general matter referring to the League of Nations. The same thing will apply, I think, to the International Labour Office—that reports should only be issued from the delegates or when the delegates return. There is a little more difficulty there——
Mr. O'Kelly: Would the Minister consider the advisability of issuing a report once a year?
Mr. McGilligan: The report is being issued.
Mr. O'Kelly: Once a year?
Mr. McGilligan: It is being issued twice a year, because the International Labour Assembly takes place at an earlier date in the year than the other, and I think it is better to keep the two segregated. In regard to the Labour side. I am more in a difficulty about the issuing of a report than in regard to the League of Nations, because the delegations to the Labour Convention consist of  three parties, the employers' representatives, the employees' representatives and an official representation. I am in control only of the official representation. From time to time we do receive reports, particularly when there are matters which affect employers and, when matters seem to affect more definitely the employees, we hear of reports being issued. The trouble is that the employees' section to whom we apply for nomination are organised, and I think they do report back to the body which appoints them. It is not clear that they would make the same reports to us for publication as they would make to the body which nominates them. It is not expected they would always do so.
With regard to the employers, we have found great difficulty in getting a suitable body to approach in order to nominate employers' representatives. Often we have to take an employer as representative because he is interested in a particular thing. This year at the Autumn Session we will be dealing with maritime matters. A difficulty will arise because there is no great association of ship-owners whom we could enthusiastically approach in this matter, and we have to pick out an individual who seems to us to be a good representative. In that case that gentleman has nobody to report to, because we simply invite him to undertake the representation. However, we will be able mainly to get the information and, even as far as the official people are concerned, it can be published, but it would be on the definite understanding that it does not purport to represent the delegation and that it only represents one side of the delegation. As I have stated, the reports will be issued from time to time as the occasion arises.
Mr. Little: May I ask the Minister whether, in view of the fact that the Estimate is for expenditure for future purposes and not for past purposes, he would give us some indication as to the line he will take in the coming year on such questions as disarmament, the minorities question  and the maritime question? There are, for instance, questions relating to fishery rights, and whether an infringement of the three miles limit would not arise.
Mr. McGilligan: One cannot very well discuss an agenda until the agenda is before one. With regard to Geneva, the actual agenda is not properly before the League of Nations until a month before the Assembly opens. It is impossible to give an indication beforehand of a particular point of view on any questions which are likely to arise. It would mean wandering too much over a big area. As to the question of the rights of minorities and disarmament—I quite forget the other one the Deputy mentioned——
Mr. Little: Maritime rights.
Mr. McGilligan: That is a particularly difficult question. It has to be considered from the fishery point of view, from the point of view of a naval blockade, and there are other points of view. The interests are somewhat conflicting; it is more difficult and, in the circumstances, I would not like at the moment to give any indication of a definite point of view upon it. With regard to the Free State delegation, the attitude is just as in the past, and that is best shown in the report that has been issued. I could not discuss any matters ahead and even before the delegation is picked. I think it would be an absurd thing to ask that information should be given on subjects which are not yet even before the Executive Council.
Mr. Lemass: I take it that it would not be in order to discuss matters arising out of the International Labour Conference?
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: No.
Vote put and agreed to.
Mr. Buckley: Before we proceed with the next business I wish to protest against the action of certain Deputies in this House who are constantly trying to bring ridicule on  the language of the country. The attempts of Deputies like Deputy Seán T. O'Kelly who, although having only an acquired knowledge of the language, have the courage to try to use it in the House—the courage of the patriotism to try to use it—are to be commended. I protest against such action on the part of Deputies who represent the people. Is mór an náire doibh agus taisbeanann sé ná bhfhuil meas aca ar a dteangann nó ar a dtír.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: All I have to say on that matter is that the Chair, so far as it is possible for the Chair to do it, will certainly not countenance the throwing of ridicule on the national language. That will not be permitted in so far as the Chair can prevent it.
Domhnall Ua Buachalla: Níor deineadh san indiu.
Mr. Blythe: I move:—
Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £3,760 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íochta an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníochta i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1930, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Teaghlachas an tSeanascail (Uimh. 14 de '23).
That a sum not exceeding £3,760 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, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Governor-General's Establishment (No. 14 of '23).
As Deputies will see, there is very little change in this Vote as compared with last year's. There is a saving as a result of the abolition of the offices of medical attendant and assistant private secretary.
Mr. de Valera: We are entirely opposed to the granting of this money. We regard it as a crime under present conditions to squander a sum of close upon £27,000 this year, when we know there are  people unemployed whose families are on the verge of starvation. We are spending on this absolutely useless office a sum of money that could be earned on an average by 200 workers in any of our industries. If you take the Census of Production, you will find the average wages and salaries earned by those employed in industry amounts to about £133 a year. It means, therefore, that on this absolutely useless office—I will show later it is worse than useless—we are spending a sum of money equivalent to that earned annually by 200 people employed in industry. In other words, in maintaining this office we are spending a sum of money which ordinarily would maintain about 1,000 individuals. Why should we do it? It is not compulsory on us to spend that money even under the Treaty. The expenditure of part of that money, I will admit, is undertaken under an Article of the Constitution. We have heard a good deal about our independent status from members on the opposite benches. If we are independent we ought not to spend on a useless office the money that is so badly required in other directions. I call it a useless office. As I indicated, I regard it as even far worse. That office is regarded by the majority of our people as a symbol of our defeat and as a badge of our slavery. That the people of this country should be taxed to maintain that symbol is one of the most disgusting things that exists in this whole régime.
I pointed out last year that the average amount spent in this connection for a number of years was £28,000. That sum is now stabilised at about £27,000 a year. In the Constitution an obligation was foolishly undertaken to give a salary to our Governor-General equal to the salary that is given to the Governor-General in Australia. Australia has a population well over twice the population of the Free State.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy is aware, of course, that the  Governor-General's salary does not come under this Vote but is dealt with elsewhere.
Mr. de Valera: I am quite aware of it, but I am anxious to point out that, in addition to the salary, we are making extra provision for the Governor-General's establishment. This person is not asked to meet out of his salary a single one of the expenses which an ordinary person has to meet out of his salary. We are giving this huge sum of money, and, in all conscience, it should be sufficient to meet everything connected with that office. As I was pointing out, our population is only half the population of Australia, and our State revenues are only one-third of the revenues of Australia. If we have this independence we hear so much talk about, I think the proper manner in which to exercise it would be to say that we are not going to spend on this office a sum of money which, relatively, is three times the sum spent in Australia. Similarly, if we compare ourselves with Canada, we find that the population of Canada is about three times our population, and its revenues are also three times greater. In all matters concerning finance we ought to have a sense of proportion. Remember that in Australia you have a territory which is roughly one hundred times the size of ours. The same applies to Canada. There is natural wealth in these countries many times greater than ours. If it is not nearly in the proportion of one to one hundred, still the natural wealth possessed by those countries is many times greater than ours.
What does the occupant of this office do for us? Is there anybody here who imagines that the people of Ireland would be otherwise than better pleased that the elected head of the State should be the real head of the State? Is there anybody here who will say that the people of Ireland will not be very much better pleased if this rubber stamp were done away with and if those who are really the Executive, as they tell us they are, were put in the position in which it would be plain to everybody that they are the Executive? If that  were done we would save an expenditure of £10,000 a year which is given to this rubber stamp, and we would be saving the extra provision of £16,000 a year for the upkeep of his establishment. Last year I pointed out the ridiculousness of the provision made by referring to the United States of America. The salary of the working head of the United States can be met from the taxation paid by 117,000,000 of people. They bear the proportion of taxation which falls upon them, and they are the richest people in the world, probably. They have a territory about one hundred times the size of this country. Here, as the result of partition and the rest of it, we are paying £10,000 a year to one nominal head of the State, and another gentleman in the North gets £8,500.
That is, in this small island a total of £18,500 has to be found for the salary of those individuals, and in addition to all that, an extravagant sum provided for the upkeep of their establishments. The salary of the President of the United States is only £15,000—that is, it is £3,500 less than the combined salaries of the two Governors-General here, whom we have at the head of the two States in this country. It seems to me to be ridiculous, and any Deputy who will vote for it must be wanting in a sense of proportion, particularly when those in favour of the Treaty, and who think that it must be maintained at all costs, are not bound by the Treaty itself to provide an establishment of this sort. I suggested last year that the signing of Bills could be very well done by the Chief Justice. The President of the Executive Council, in reply, said it was a wrong principle that the judge should have anything to do with the making of the law. The mere attesting or countersigning of an Act which would have been, in the first instance, I expect, signed by the Ceann Comhairle here and the Chairman of the Seanad, as long as you have a Seanad, would not be participating, in any ordinary sense of the word, in the making of the laws. If the Executive is the real Executive,  let us have done with nonsense and the fripperies of this particular office. What does he do? Go to a few functions. We are told by the Minister for Finance that it is necessary to have somebody to entertain. Nevertheless, the people who ought to have the first obligation to entertain in this country are the people who at present have to leave it, and the other people we ought to entertain are the people on the unemployment list at the moment. We ought not to spend what would maintain two hundred families, or one thousand individuals, on a gentleman who will go around to visit a few race meetings and go to a few functions. As I said, it is not really useless; but, on the whole, the people in this country regard it as a definite symbol of their defeat, and the sooner that office is abolished the better will it be for the people of this country as a whole. If there are people who are insisting on maintaining him, at least let them get a sense of proportion and see what it would be right for the revenue of this State, with our resources, to spend on him. We in this State do not want that office. We believe it can be very well done without; it is ridiculous for us to be paying a sum of £27,000 a year for a rubber stamp.
Mr. Corry: I would like some information on those matters. This is a gentleman to whom we are paying a salary of £10,000 a year.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The salary does not arise on this Vote at all.
Mr. Corry: I think a gentleman drawing that amount should, at least, be able to pay his servants.
I certainly object to the payment of £1,825 for salaries, wages and allowances of the household staff. I would like to know what check there is on these expenses. I notice an item of £3,000 allowance to the Governor-General for expenses. I would like to know how that arises. I think he ought to pay his ordinary expenses out of the £10,000. A most extraordinary thing is an item for motor car replacement. Last year  he got £1,000 for a new motor car. Surely to goodness he could not absolutely destroy a motor car costing £1,000 in twelve months, unless he took it into all the bog holes down the country. Now he wants £740 for a new car this year. We are told in the note that there are arrears due for replacement, after providing £1,000 for a new car last year. I object to this because, as this official knows, we have a motor factory in Cork that is giving employment to six or seven thousand men.
Mr. Gorey: Making motor tractors.
Mr. Corry: That firm turns out motor cars as well as tractors, even if the cars are produced elsewhere. I consider that a gentleman who draws a salary of £10,000 yearly should, at least, have the patriotism to order a motor car from a firm that gives employment to about seven thousand hands in this country. That is the point I wish to bring forward.
Mr. Gorey: How many Ford cars have the people on the opposite benches got?
An Ceann Comhairle: Let the Deputy make his speech.
Mr. Corry: I wish that dumb-bell would keep quiet until I am finished. Let him go back to the dogs. On looking over the salaries I wondered if the comptroller of the household is a kind of high class butler. I presume he gets £600 for looking after the grub for the Governor-General, and seeing that he is properly fed. I think that is extraordinary. I see that he has a private secretary and an assistant private secretary, each drawing £350 yearly. No; I am wrong; I see that one private secretary was got rid of last year. I congratulate the Governor-General on finding that he wants only one private secretary this year to put on the stamps. I think it is a disgrace for an Executive Council to allow this state of affairs to continue, while leaving the dependents of those who died for the independence of the country to draw home  assistance, so that they may live and keep out of the poor-house. I think it is a scandal, and I totally object to the payment of £16,000 to a gentleman who has a salary of £10,000. I think it is not in keeping with the condition of this piece of the island and I think it should be stopped. Unless the Executive Council stop it we will have to get some other means of doing so.
Mr. T.J. O'Connell: I want to say briefly that we have made our position very clear on this Vote on several occasions, especially last year, and I do not want to refer to it at any great length now. We recognise that under the Treaty settlement it was accepted that this position was created, but we feel that it is not necessary to maintain the establishment on the scale on which it has been maintained. There is no justification, in my opinion, for the inclusion of £3,000 in this Vote for the upkeep of the establishment of the Governor-General. Salaries of men in high positions are fixed in relation to the expenses they have to bear, and that, no doubt, was taken into account in fixing the figure for the Governor-General's salary which, to my mind, is altogether too large. I agree with Deputy de Valera that in that matter at all events we should not be anxious to be placed on terms of equality with either Canada or Australia, because we cannot afford to do so. I think that the allowance for expenses is one that we might very well cut out. The President of the State has only a quarter to the salary of the Governor-General, and he gets no special grant of this nature for the expenses which he, and any man in his position, must necessarily incur. For that reason we will vote against this Estimate as we have done on previous occasions.
Seán T. O Ceallaigh: Nílim chun mórán do rá ar an Vóta so. Dubhairt mo cháirde annso a riabh le rá agam, beagnach. Aontuighim le Tomás O Conaill, Teachta, nach gá an méid seo airgid do chaitheamh. Ní mór  dúinn a thuigsint go bhfuil na daoine annso atá ar thaobh an Chonnartha, ar thaobh na h-oifige seo, agus chófada agus atáid annsin beidh an oifig sin annsin. Nítheastuigheann uaim-se í do choinneáil annsin, ach do réir an Chonnartha beidh sí annsin chó fada agus a bheidh siad-san annsin. Ach nuair do bhí an Connradh fé dhíospóireacht, roinnt blian ó shoin, bhí níos mó ná duine amháin de'n tuairim go gcuirfí an duine seo isteach in oifig bheag imBaile Ath Cliath, nach geaithfí morán airgid leis, nach mbeadh mórán tráchta air agus nach dtiocfadh sé ós cóir na ndaoine ar chor ar bith. Ba é sin tuairim na ndaoine nuair a bhí an Connradh fé dhíospóireacht. Ach ní mar sin a thuit an sgéal amach nuair a cuireadh an Connradh i bhféidhm. Aontuighim go láidir le Tomás O Connaill. Teachta, nach gá an t-airgead so do chaitheamh ar an oifig seo; is féidir claoidh leis an gConnradh gan an t-airgead so do chaitheamh leis an duine seo agus gan é do thabhairt ós cóir an phobail mar atá á dhéanamh fé láthair. Níl aon rud sa Chonnradh a cuirfeadh d'fhiachaibh ar an Rialtas an méid airgid seo do thabhairt do'n Seanascal no an teach no an oifig seo do thabhairt dó; níl aon ghá é do thabhairt ós cóir an phobail agus é do dhéanamh chó-údarásach agus a dheineann an tAire é ós cóir an phobail. Dá mba mhian leo, thiocfadh leo an oifig seo do laigheadú ar shlí go ndéanfadh na daoine dearmad air. Ba mhaith le n-a lán daoine atá ar thaobh an Chonnartha é sin do dhéanamh. Má's mian leis an Rialtas, is féidir leo sin do dhéanamh. Ach ní féidir leo é do dhéanamh agus an méid seo airgid do chaitheamh leis an oifig gach blian.
Mr. Blythe: We have heard very much the same kind of arguments on this Vote as we heard on previous occasions, and I do not suppose that there is anything very new that I can say in reply to them. Deputy de Valera's talk about the other uses that could be made of this money makes no impression on me. I do not believe that it represents his point of view. There is nothing in  his attitude on other questions that indicates that any kind of expenditure which does not directly give employment to the poor, shall we say, is to be condemned. There are many kinds of expenditure which are in their nature essentially the same as the expenditure on the Governor-General that have the support of Deputy de Valera and of the Fianna Fáil Party. The expenditure on, say, foreign representation is essentially expenditure of the same nature. It does not give employment to those who are in need in the congested districts or in our cities. The returns that it gives to the nation, though important, are not returns that can be measured by direct economic results. Therefore, I regard the attack made by Deputy de Valera on this Vote as simply the old attack on the Treaty, and I do not propose to deal with that at all.
I would say, in passing, that it is ridiculous to suggest that if this Vote were not here some two hundred people might be given employment who are unemployed now. This money goes down through the hands of the Governor-General, and most of it gives employment. The Deputy was not merely talking about the money in this Vote, but about cognate expenditure. A great deal of that money gives employment, and probably employment not very different from the employment it would give if it were not taken out of the taxpayers' pockets or if it were expended directly on employment.
I have stated before that my view is that the expenditure on this office is not excessive. I do not think it is possible to fix a standard of expenditure for this office by reference to expenditure in other countries, though we might look at the expenditure in other countries as affording us some guidance. I do think that if there were different circumstances politically, if there were the full acceptance of the Treaty and the full acceptance of this office, which I think will come, from the national point of view more money could usefully be spent on it, money which would not, as the Deputy would perhaps  pretend, be denationalising in its effect but would be the opposite. However, that is a matter, perhaps, for argument at some future time.
Deputy O'Kelly said that when the Treaty was passed various people had the view that everything possible should be done to minimise the office of the Governor-General, and that everything possible should be done to keep him, as it were, in the background. I have no doubt that a great many people held that view, but those who held that view believed that we would have appointed as Governor-General from time to time some English peer whose influence in the country would be a denationalising influence, and for that reason they took up the attitude that they did take up. I do not think that even those of us who took the most optimistic view at the time of the Treaty were at all sure that we would have by now reached the position which has actually been reached. where the Governor-General is definitely the nominee of the Government here, where he is appointed solely on their recommendation, appointed without consultation with and without having any regard to the wishes or the desires of the Government in England. I am certain that my own view of the office of Governor-General is different, because the position is what it is, from the view I would have taken of the office of Governor-General if the appointment had been in reality made by the British Government, and if the Governor-General had been a stranger, sent into our midst for a period.
I need hardly deal with the details of the Vote. We were bound to provide a salary for the Governor-General, and in negotiating with the British after the Treaty we accepted for the Governor-General the salary of the Governor-General of Australia. I think, strictly speaking, by the Treaty we could have been held to be bound to provide a salary equal to the salary of the Governor-General of Canada, but it was agreed that the salary should be the same  as that of the Governor-General of Australia. We were bound to provide not merely a salary but an establishment. If Deputies would consider this matter in the ordinary way, instead of using it as a means of starting the old arguments about the Treaty, I do not think that they would regard the amount as excessive. Certainly it would be impossible for anybody to maintain the sort of establishment that it is necessary for the Governor-General to maintain, if he is to discharge any of the duties of an official host, on the salary that is provided. The other sums are certainly required.
We have here the beginning of a diplomatic corps. We are going to have additional ministers appointed here shortly, and it is possible that ultimately there will be a greater number in that diplomatic corps than can be foreseen now. I have no intimation that it is going to happen immediately; I have no official intimation at all about it, but I think it is likely that there will be a British representative on a diplomatic basis appointed here. We are certainly going to have an addition to the American representation here, we will have a Papal representative shortly, and we will have French and German Ministers. There will be expenditure by those people on hospitality and on certain types of social activities, and in my opinion it would be against the public interest if there was no public officer here who could do some of these things on behalf of the Free State. In other countries where much lesser sums than that voted here may appear clearly on the face of the Estimate, for similar purposes, in reality much greater sums may be spent. Our form of Estimates enable Deputies to see the full expenditure. In various other countries it is not possible for anybody but an expert, and, in fact, in some of them I doubt if it is possible, even for an expert, to see what the cost is. Various sorts of activities are charged under different Votes and under a variety of headings that make it impossible to see what the actual outlay is.
 The Commitee divided: Tá, 63; Níl, 59.
|Aird, William P.
Beckett, James Walter.
Bennett, George Cecil.
Bourke, Séamus A.
Byrne, John Joseph.
Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
Connolly, Michael P.
Cosgrave, William T.
De Loughrey, Peter.
Dolan, James N.
Doyle, Peadar Seán.
Duggan, Edmund John.
Egan, Barry M.
Gorey, Denis J.
Hassett, John J.
Heffernan, Michael R.
Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
|Kelly, Patrick Michael.
Law, Hugh Alexander.
Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
McFadden, Michael Og.
Mongan, Joseph W.
Murphy, James E.
Nally, Martin Michael.
Nolan, John Thomas.
O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
O'Reilly, John J.
O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
Thrift, William Edward.
White, Vincent Joseph.
Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Cassidy, Archie J.
Corry, Martin John.
De Valera, Eamon.
Gorry, Patrick J.
Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
Kent, William R.
Lemass, Seán. F.
Little, Patrick John.
O'Connell, Thomas J.
O'Kelly, Seán T.
Powell, Thomas P.
Ruttledge, Patrick J.
Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P. S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies G. Boland and Allen. Motion declared carried.
Mr. Blythe: I move:—
Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £80.052 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníochta i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1930, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí an Oireachtas.
 That a sum not exceeding £80,052 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, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Oireachtas.
The Oireachtas Vote for this year differs from last year's Vote mainly because of the increased provision for travelling expenses for both Deputies and Senators. As I explained previously, there are two causes for the fact that the travelling expenses are higher. One is that not merely have all the Deputies taken their seats, but there is also the fact that the narrow majority leads to a better attendance of Deputies than when there was a bigger majority. Consequently, there is more travelling. The Bill that was passed in 1928 also led to some increase because it gave facilities to Deputies which they had not before. It gave facilities in that it provided an alternative to travelling by rail. That has led to some increase in the case of travelling expenses. The other increases are due to ordinary increments in the salaries of staffs.
Mr. de Valera: We are going to oppose the granting of this money. It is the only way we have of showing at this time that we still believe there are too many in this Assembly. It is unnecessarily large. Also, from our point of view the Seanad is unnecessary, but even from the point of view of those who regard the Seanad as useful. we think its numbers are altogether too large. To meet the expenses of the Seanad, I suppose we have directly a sum of about £25,000 for salaries and travelling expenses, and other sums for the clerk and assistant clerk of the Seanad. I am sure if we had all the items that are due exclusively to the expenses of the Seanad the sum would be about £30,000 or £40,000. About half of that could be saved if the Seanad were brought down to reasonable proportions. It is very difficult to know where any other economies could be effected. More  than once I thought it would be well if a small Committee of the Dáil were set up consisting of one member of each Party to examine the question as to whether there were any directions in which savings could be effected. We have had one saving in the publication of the reports in their present form. Some members now are beginning to think that perhaps that saving is effected at too great a cost in other directions.
An Ceann Comhairle: resumed the Chair.
Mr. de Valera: However, it was an attempt at any rate in accordance with the ideas of cutting out useless expenditure. It is very difficult for anybody not acquainted with the working of the various sub-sections here, the working of the various offices directly in connection with the Dáil, to say whether there are not other directions in which savings could be effected. The main reason we are opposing this Vote is because we believe that the maintenance of the Seanad at its present number is altogether unwarranted, even from the point of view of those who hold against us that the Seanad is useful.
Proinnsias O Fathaigh: Ba mhaith liom a chloisint ó'n Aire go bhfuil níos mó aire ghá thabhairt do dhualgaisí na dTeachtaí ó thainig Teachtaí Fianna Fáil isteach annseo. Tá rud áirithe nach n-aontuighim leis san meastachán seo agus isé an rud é san ná “Comhdhail Pairliminte na hImpireachta.” Ní dóigh liom gur ceart airgead do chaitheamh ar a leithéid sin de rud. Ní dheineann sé aon mhaith don tír seo, cé'be maitheas a dheineas sé do'n Impireacht. Mar a dubhairt Eamon de Valera, Teachta, ba mhaith an rud Coiste do chur ar bun chun fháil amach conus a d'fhéadfaí airgead do shábháil ar an Vóta so. Thiochfadh le Coiste mar seo ceist líon na dTeachtaí do scrúdú agus conus mar is féidir an lión sin do laigheadú. Ar an dóigh sin, thiochfadh linn £20,000 do shábháil. Mar gheall ar an Seanad, táim ar aon intinn leis na Teachtaí eile ar an taoibh seo den Tigh. B'fhéidir nár ceart deire do chur leis ar fad ach thiochfadh linn £15,000 do shábháil air—sé sin  £35,000 ar fad, agus tá an t-airgead san de dhíth go géar ar an tír. Thiocfadh le Coiste dul isteach san gceist agus socrú do dhéanamh conus is fearr an t-airgead do shábháil.
An Dochtúir O Tiobraide: Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá mar gheall ar na ticéidi a tugtar dúinn mar Theachtaí. Cúpla mí ó shoin, cuaidh mé isteach sa oifig san chathair agus d'iarr mé ar an gcléireach ticéid do thabhairt dom go Gaillimh agus ar ais. Ba é an luach a bhí ar an dticéid sin 35/-. Nuair a thug mé an páipéir a fuair mé annso dó, do ghlac sé an ticéid uaim agus do thug sé ticéid dom 'na áit ar chostas £3, no mar sin. I rith an tsamhraidh, ar dóigh ar bith, is feidir ticéid go dti Gaillimh agus ar ais d'fháil ar 35/- acht támuid-ne ag íoc £3, no mar sin, air. Ba mhaith liom dá gcuirfeadh an tAire stop leis an gchleachtadh sin.
Mr. Kennedy: There is just one suggestion that I have to make on this Vote. It is that: that I do not see any necessity for sending copies of the Official Reports of the Seanad to every Deputy in the Dáil. Neither do I see the necessity for sending the Seanad Order Papers to every Deputy. Copies of these Reports could be left where Deputies could see them if they wanted. I do not think there are many Deputies interested in these debates.
Mr. Blythe: The amount for the Empire Parliamentary Union, mentioned by Deputy Fahy, is really a subscription for the Journal. Personally, I think many Deputies find that Journal interesting and useful. However, it is a matter that Deputies can raise in the House if they care to, and can ascertain the opinion of Deputies generally. With regard to the point raised by Deputy Tubridy, the question of special treatment, or at any rate more favourable treatment, in the matter  of return tickets, has been taken up with the railway companies many times and always without success, until this week, when we have succeeded in inducing the railway companies to reconsider it.
An Dochtúir O Tiobraide: Ní h-é sin an puinnte a bhí agam-sa. Ní “special treatment” a bhí i gceist agam chor ar bith ach a bheith ag íoc £3 ar thicéid is feidir 'fháil ar 35/-.
Mr. Blythe: The position is that the railway companies have been charging full return fares, and nothing less than that for Deputies' tickets. However, I think—though I am not quite sure that it is finally settled—for the future, instead of the full return fare being charged, there will be single fare and one-third.
Mr. Gorey: In connection with that, on the line I travel we are expected to get a motor bus allowance from Kilkenny to Dublin of 12/9. The railway company deny there is such a ticket issued by them. The Finance Department holds that there are such tickets issued, and the result is that Deputies are between the devil and the deep sea. The ordinary charge for a railway return ticket is 45/-, which the Finance Department pays cheerfully.
Mr. Blythe: Not cheerfully.
Mr. Gorey: But they will only allow 12/9 for a motor bus fare, whereas the railway company deny there is a lesser ticket than 21/- return. We have got no satisfaction in this matter, and I hope the Minister will inquire into it.
Mr. Blythe: I could not tell the Deputy anything about that, at the moment, but I shall inquire, or, if the Deputy puts down a question, I shall reply to it, but I do not know the facts just now.
Mr. Gorey: I had hoped it would be settled without any of these difficulties.
The Committee divided: Tá, 74; Níl, 51.
|Aird, William P.
Beckett, James Walter. Brodrick, Seán.
Byrne, John Joseph.
Cassidy, Archie J.
Cole, John James.
Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
Connolly, Michael P.
Cosgrave, William T.
De Loughrey, Peter.
Dolan, James N.
Doyle, Peadar Seán.
Duggan, Edmund John.
Egan, Barry M.
Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
Gorey, Denis J.
Hassett, John J.
Heffernan, Michael R.
Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
|Bennett, George Cecil.
Bourke, Séamus A. Kelly, Patrick Michael.
Law, Hugh Alexander.
Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
McFadden, Michael Og.
Mongan, Joseph W.
Murphy, James E.
Myles, James Sproule.
Nally, Martin Michael.
Nolan, John Thomas.
O'Connell, Thomas J.
O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
O'Reilly, John J.
O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
Thrift, William Edward.
White, Vincent Joseph.
Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Corry, Martin John.
De Valera, Eamon.
Gorry, Patrick J.
|Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
Kent, William R.
Lemass, Seán F.
Little, Patrick John.
O'Kelly, Seán T.
Powell, Thomas P.
Ruttledge, Patrick J.
Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Duggan and P. S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies G. Boland and Allen.
Question declared carried. Progress ordered to be reported. The Dáil went out of Committee. Progress reported; Committee to sit again on Wednesday, 3rd July.
Motion made and question proposed: “That the Dáil do now adjourn.”
The President: I beg to give notice that I shall move on Wednesday next that the hour of adjournment be extended from 10.30 p.m. to a later hour on the following morning.
The Dáil adjourned at 2.5 p.m. to Wednesday, 3rd July, 1929.