Deputy Byrne has given notice of his intention to draw the attention of the Dáil to the policy of the Government in creating vacancies in the Customs service by dismissing men in order to provide employment for other parties.
THE DÁIL IN COMMITTEE. - DISMISSAL OF CUSTOMS EMPLOYEES.
I handed in that motion, as a result of an unsatisfactory reply which I received at question hour. My question was: "To ask the Minister for Finance if he is aware that a number of Custom watchers at the North Wall are under notice of dismissal at an early date; that there is an increased amount of work in their Department, and if in view of this he will see that their notice is withdrawn."
The Minister, replying, said: "The men who have been given notice are casual extra men employed on a daily basis. In pursuance of the definite policy of the Government to give as much employment as possible to ex-members of the Army, any staff in this grade that may be required to meet additional work will be recruited from such men, and I regret that I am not prepared to cause the notices of discharge to be withdrawn. None of the men concerned has served in the National Army."
I wish to draw the attention of the Dáil to the inconsistency of the two parts of the reply. The first part of his reply I thoroughly agree with. When additional men are wanted in Government services I heartily approve of the idea of giving men in the National Army opportunities of competing for these positions, but here the answer says: "Any staff in this grade that may be required to meet additional work will be recruited from such men." There is no additional staff required. Notice of dismissal has been served on existing employees with 12 months to two years' good service in order to create vacancies. Now I ask the Minister is that the policy of the Government, is that the way to remedy unemployment in the country—to dismiss married men without reason in order to make room for others? I say it would suit the Government much better to leave these men alone, men who have given faithful service, and that these men who were demobbed from the Army should be reinstated in their positions. I will give the Minister a case in which a former Government employee, for the past 12 months has been doing his level best in this House, in the Lobby outside, in endeavouring to persuade Deputies to induce the Government Department concerned to reinstate him, and they have not reinstated him. There are other means of providing work in the city for the demobbed men besides dismissing other men. I merely rise to ask the Minister whether this is going to be the policy of the Government, because it is a serious matter for at least 1,000 to 1,200 men. I am told there are 1,200 temporarily employed, temporary because they had never the good fortune to get their appointments.
Their services range from practically twenty-five years down to the present day. There is a great fear abroad that in order to smooth over present difficulties in the country with a certain class, that these men will, by degrees, in batches of twelve or thereabouts, be served with notice in order to get places for others. I would ask the Minister whether that is the policy of the Government, and I would ask the Dáil whether they approve of such a policy—that citizens, some of them men of fifty years of age, men with large families, who could not join the Army, should be dismissed. Is it fair because these men did not join the Army, that now they should be victimised, and told because they did not serve in the National Army, "You must get out"? I would ask the Minister, in view of his own answer, that it is the intention that men will be recruited from ex-members of the National Army, while carrying out that intention to withdraw the notices on these men, and not to allow them to be victimised because they were not in a position to join the Army.
I desire to support the appeal which has been made by Deputy Byrne in this case. I assume, and I think I have a right to assume, that when these men were employed in the first instance, although they were employed in a casual way, they must have had some kind of national record in order to secure the positions. Consequently for that reason there would be very little difference between them and the men who have served in the National Army. At the same time I am not against the employment, where employment can be found, of any man who has served in the National Army. I think it should not be said that the only qualification for a position is that a man has served in the National Army. Where a man got into a position and got used to a particular class of work, he would naturally be more efficient, and I contend it is a bad policy on the part of the Government to remove men when they arrive at that stage of efficiency, and when they are fully acquainted with the conditions and the particular class of work which they are doing.
I contend for these reasons that it is not good policy for the Government to remove men who, by their experience and length of service, qualified themselves as fit men for the positions, and simply to make room for men who have served in the National Army and who, perhaps, are not equally as well qualified as the men who have now been removed. While I do not pretend to have the power or the patronage of those who sit on the opposite benches, I have been asked for a recommendation —although it may not be worth very much—by men who are looking for employment. If a case comes before me of a single man or a married man with two or three children, I always give preference to the married man.
I wish to associate myself to a certain extent with Deputy Byrne's appeal on two grounds. The first is that the whole question of temporary employment in Government departments is in a chaotic state. Employment that endured for three or five years can hardly be called temporary employment. I think it would be a very wise thing for the Minister for Finance, when he recovers, to consider the desirability of seeing if men who have served three years in a temporary position should not be taken on the permanent establishment. If a man serves three years in a position presumably he is a fit and suitable person for it. I think that the whole question is one that needs reconsideration. I do not go quite so far with Deputy Byrne in the second point. I realise the immense difficulty that the Government have in finding employment for demobilised soldiers. Under the present trade conditions it is very hard to find employment except what is provided by the Government. I would not quarrel if the Government discharged temporary employees who had been fit to join the National Army and refused to do so. All these cases require investigation. There are many men who by reason of age were not able to join the National Army. Others, owing to wounds sustained in the European war or ill health, would not have been accepted by the National Army. To me it seems a real injustice that men who could not join the National Army, even if they wished to do so, and in some cases they were rejected, should be discharged from Government employment now in order to make room for ex-National soldiers. Cases of that kind have come under my notice and I have called the attention of the responsible Ministers to them. On the question of reinstatement I think there should be a preliminary inquiry, as there may be other cases of people who do not know how to approach a Deputy and who may have suffered unfair treatment. If the Minister for Finance would set up some sort of a tribunal or inquiry, even if it were only a departmental body, to ascertain their family circumstances before their discharge, I think it would be a certain benefit and there would be a feeling that Justice had been done. That feeling does not exist now in every case.
I do not pretend to know the particulars of this case and as to whether the individuals who received notice have any claim from a national standpoint to be in the positions they are in to-day. Certainly if they are Dublin men, married, and forty or fifty years of age and are to be dismissed simply to make room for ex-National soldiers I would not be in agreement with it. There may be other reasons and, perhaps, the President when replying will satisfy me in this matter. I would like to point out that if the Government wants to place National soldiers in positions there are any amount of them available in the Government service if they dismiss men who are living well on the pensions that they are receiving from the British Army. This is no new suggestion. Eighteen months ago I actually gave the names of, and positions that are held by ex-British soldiers who are enjoying really good pensions of £120 to £130 and £140, and who are at the same time drawing— between wages, house, fire and light and other things—up to £5 or £6 a week. These are positions that should be given to ex-National soldiers who went through the struggle since 1916. If it is a fact that these men are Dublin men and are married men with families, and that there is nothing against them, I do not agree with dismissing them to make room for ex-National soldiers who are more likely to be ex-British Army men. I could supply the names right away, and if the files are looked up it will be found that I pointed out a number of positions that could be given to ex-National soldiers, and that those deprived of those positions would not suffer very much.
This case, to my mind, suffers very much from exaggeration. I think the exaggeration started in the first place with Deputy Byrne and extended all along the line until we had the most extraordinary exaggeration of all in Deputy McGrath's statement. I do not know where these men with £5 a week are.
The Ministry of Defence can show you. They are on the files.
In any case the statement is made in a general way that these eighteen men are men with families. It is further stated that they may have amongst them a number who had pre-Truce service or national service or something of that sort. At most there are eighteen men affected, and they do not include either National Army men, men with any pre-Truce service, or dismissed or resigned ex-R.I.C. men. This service, as far as I can go into it, came into existence eighteen months ago when we started our own Customs at the North Wall, and we have a right to give these posts now to men who served us in the hour of danger. They have a right to demand it from us. They fought for the peace that has been won, and it is their right and privilege. If it is contended that these people who for ten, twelve or fifteen months have retained these positions during a time in which the other men shouldered their rifles, marched through the slush and fought for them at all hours of the night— men who were employed on a temporary basis at day rates—should be kept on, I do not subscribe to that. I do not subscribe to the exaggerated statements made here. Is there no one in the National Army who is married and who has children?
Only last week I came across one man who was absolutely penniless, and who gave us good service. It is intended, as far as Government employment is concerned, to give preference to ex-Army men. That is the policy, and it was the policy when Deputy McGrath was Minister for Industry and Commerce, and when Deputy McCarthy was Parliamentary Secretary to the President. It was the policy all through, and it is still the policy, that these men should get what is their right and due, and that men who have been for ten or twelve months on a temporary basis should not be entitled to be put on a permanent basis.
That was the policy. Some of us tried to do what the President is advocating now, and could not get it done. The men whom I mentioned were men who could well afford to live on the pensions they were receiving, and who, perhaps, were not in favour of the Government, while other men, ex-members of the National Army, who are now out of work, were fighting against the British Government. I have not exaggerated, and if the files at the office of the Public Works are looked up it will be found that I have not exaggerated in stating the wages drawn by ex-British Army officers and men. It is there in black and white.
Is it the intention of the Government to apply this policy to all departments of the Government?
That was not raised on the adjournment.
You might answer it.
Might I ask the President, is this just the beginning of an effort to dismiss the other thousand men spread over the Government service?
That was not raised on the adjournment.
This was raised on the adjournment. Is it the intention of the Ministry to pursue that policy to the extent that it is quite possible they would remove the preventative officers in the Customs service? In accordance with their agreement they should have been permanently appointed on the 1st April last, but they have not been appointed.
That was not raised on the adjournment. The case of eighteen men was, and I have given particulars of their case.
The Dáil adjourned at 4.20 p.m. until Monday, 7th July, 3 p.m.