asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if his attention has been drawn to resolutions passed at a mass meeting of Dublin railwaymen, held on Sunday, 21st June, 1931, calling on the Government to review the findings of the Irish National Wages Board, and if he proposes to take any action in the matter.

I have no power to review the findings of the Irish Railways Wages Board, which was set up as a result of agreements between the railway companies and the railway trades unions, and am not aware of any better method of reviewing railway wage questions in all their aspects than is provided by the machinery of the Board.

Is the Minister aware that the Deputy who asked this question has been advocating a lower rate of wages and a greater number of men employed?

Is the Minister aware that Deputy Davin never told the truth in his life, and he cannot tell it now? Has the Minister received the resolution referred to—and I direct Deputy Davin's attention to the nature of the question—and has he replied to the persons by whom the resolutions were forwarded?

I have received certain resolutions.

Has the Minister replied?

I cannot say at the moment whether the reply is issued, but if it is, it is of the type of reply to the Deputy's question.

Does the Minister recognise that the resolution should come from people who have authority to issue such resolutions?

Cregan, the blackleg leader.

I am not at all disposed to take notice of these resolutions, because there is particular machinery set up under the Railways Act, and that is founded upon an agreement made between responsible trade union leaders and the railway company.

Not blacklegs.

There is no other possible way of having a wage dispute adjusted except by that. It is a satisfactory way, and I can see no other satisfactory way.

If representations are made to the Minister by workers of the particular union, that they have been sold by their union, will he consider representations from them?

No.

That is a hypothetical question.

Is the Minister aware that he allowed the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Company to reduce wages without approaching it in the proper way?

I would almost take credit for adopting the view that we got a small amount of money shared over a large number of men in that way.

Is the Minister aware that his Department allowed the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Company to reduce the workers' wages without approaching the proper tribunal?

That is another question.

I take a certain amount of credit for the fact that wages were reduced in order to have a certain number of men employed.

The Minister has taken credit for having men dismissed, as he has not introduced the Traffic Bill.

The position is that we have the fact that the Government are so benevolent towards men in Donegal that a certain number of men have been kept in employment instead of the whole lot being dismissed.

Mr. Cassidy rose.

Deputy Cassidy must resume his seat. Deputy Cassidy ought to be quite satisfied that he worked in the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway.

The Minister's reply was unsatisfactory.

There is no hope that the Deputy will be satisfied with the Minister's answer, but perhaps he recognises that the Chair was benevolent towards him. I knew he would ask about the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway, and that is a separate question.

May I make a personal explanation regarding statements that have been made?

What is the good of a personal explanation in these circumstances?

A statement has been made by Deputy Davin, and was echoed by the Minister, similar in nature to a speech made——

—a speech made by Deputy Murphy of the so-called Labour Party and published in the "Southern Star." In response to that speech I published a challenge to the Deputy, and I offered to pay £10 to any charity if he could produce an extract from any speech delivered by me inside or outside this House of that nature. That challenge the Deputy has run away from.

That is not so, withdraw.

That challenge the Deputy has run away from. Deputy Davin has now repeated the statement, and I want to show that it is incorrect.

It is correct.

It is not true. I will pay £10 to the Deputy and another £10 to Deputy Morrissey if he can prove it.

Put it in the National Fund.

There is £10 waiting for someone.

It will give them a chance of getting back some of the money they lost in their bets last week.

We have notice that Deputy Briscoe—this is merely a point of order—wants to discuss the subject-matter of Questions 2 and 3 on the Adjournment. Now the questions themselves are so framed as to be in order, but in view of the answer given I would like to know from Deputy Briscoe exactly what question he wants to ask the Minister, and what the responsibility of the Minister is for the matter on which he wants to elicit some statement. The Minister is not responsible for trade unions. I would like to know what the Deputy wants to raise on the Adjournment.

Does the Ceann Comhairle ask me whether the Minister is responsible for trade unions?

The Ceann Comhairle is satisfied that he is not.

Nor for scab unions.

Nor blackleg Deputies.

What does the Deputy want to raise?

I want to raise the issue. The Minister's argument was that no one of the lower grades was reduced below the minimum wage. The Minister made no reference whatever to the second part of the question with regard to protection for lower grade wage earners in the Transport Bill.

The Deputy is not going to advocate on the Adjournment legislation to deal with a particular type of worker. I want to know whether the Minister has any responsibility in these matters beyond the giving of information. The Minister is not responsible for the findings of the National Wages Board. I take it that is clear.

If the findings of the Board were such that they did not appear to be within reason, and within what the Minister himself would desire, would he not have the right to intervene?

No.

Even if it was against the interests of public policy.

I am bound by Section 55 of the Railways Act.

I will raise the matter arising out of question No. 2 on the Adjournment.

The two questions are identical.

No. Representations have been made to me——

By whom?

By people who have evidently left your Union.

Name them.

Representations do not make any difference. What I want to know is what the Minister's responsibility is.

His responsibility is to take steps to see that no strike shall take place if he can prevent it. A strike may be brought about by people who have a just grievance.

The question of taking steps is bound up with what powers I have to take steps in this matter. I have none.

The question of a strike which has taken place or which is imminent has already been raised in the House. I think it has been stated before from the Chair that the Minister has certain powers as a negotiator and that certain members of the Minister's staff whose salaries are on the Estimate represent the Minister in certain trade disputes. If the Deputy desires to raise a question as to what the Minister is going to do with regard to an imminent trade dispute, that question would be in order, but it has often been ruled that as the Minister's functions are those of a negotiator or go-between, the merits of the dispute ought not to be discussed. If the Minister were to make a declaration on the merits of the dispute, his usefulness as an arbitrator would presumably be impaired. Is question 2 of that type, as to whether the Minister will take certain action to prevent a trade dispute?

Certainly.

Differentiation must be made here. There are two things, first the Irish Railway Wages Board which is a statutory authority founded upon Section 5 of the Railways Act. I cannot interfere as to how these inquiries are conducted. An award has been made and has been accepted by the Trades Unions concerned and by the Railway Company. I would be debarred from interfering in any dispute where the recognised Trade Unions and the Railway Company have agreed.

May I ask the Minister whether he has any information that there is the slightest possibility of a strike?

I have no apprehension of a strike at all.

Has the Minister received resolutions from a mass meeting of railwaymen?

I have received a resolution but I would not like to describe it as coming from a mass meeting of railwaymen.

I want to put one point.

I want the Deputy to convince me before he puts any point to the Minister that there is something which the Minister, within the limits of his responsibility, can do.

He could see in the case of the lower grade men that fuller details are put before the Railway Wages Board, as they were left out by the Unions representing them.

I would not be prepared to accept that at all, that the Deputy could have a debate on the adjournment on a basis like that. The Railway Wages Board have been looking into the matter. It has made an award and it would appear that the award has been accepted. The Minister has no responsibility for seeing that things are properly put before that Board. The only responsibility the Minister has is that if a strike takes place he might act as negotiator. In this case there does not appear to be any such position. The Deputy wants to raise a question that certain things are not properly put before the Railway Board.

That is one of the points. I contend that there is a danger of a railway strike taking place because of the dissatisfaction among the masses of railway workers owing to the reduction of the wages of the lower-paid men below the recognised minimum.

Will the Deputy say whether he received a resolution signed by a railwayman from Kildare who blacklegged on his fellow-workers in 1911?

I have no representation from a railwayman in Kildare. Representations have come to me from lower-grade workers in Dublin and . Deputy Davin is either misinformed or is making a deliberate misstatement.

I asked a question.

You made an insinuation.

What is the value of an adjournment debate unless the Minister has some function in the matter? The Minister does not appear to have any function.

That is what the Minister said the last time was a bus strike.

It is an entirely different matter. The Deputy must have a little bit more responsibility. He prides himself on having a little bit more sense——

I do not pride myself on anything.

It was an entirely different situation. I might state generally my position in this matter. There is only one possibility of a strike, and that is if people like Deputy Briscoe are allowed to do mischief by turning a very small group of railwaymen against their trade unions and against the railway company.

That is the position now.

If there is to be any dispute raised as against the trades unions concerned and the railway concerned, I would deem it my duty to be absent from the House while such a discussion is on.

I had some doubt about allowing the Deputy's questions on the paper. I am not convinced that there is anything which the Deputy can raise on the adjournment which is a direct responsibility of the Minister and for which the Minister can answer in the present circumstances. Other circumstances may be developed later. I will postpone a decision on the matter until 6.30 p.m., and I will hear Deputy Briscoe in the meantime. At present I am not convinced that there is anything which the Minister has responsibility for.

I am quite satisfied to wait until the Ceann Comhairle has considered the matter, but I want to repudiate emphatically that I am trying to create mischief as between the company and the trade unions. What I want to ask the Minister is where he got that information from. Is it part of the agreement that was made prior to the Kildare election that they would support each other?

The Deputy must sit down.

Where did the Minister get this information?

Will the Deputy take any bets on that?

What about getting in on the first count—what about that bet?

You got counted out.

I hold that bet.

Kildare is a small county, but surely it had enough cross-roads to allow Deputies to say all they wanted to say in the last month.